As prison populations rise to unprecedented levels, to what extent can it be argued that prisons work?

Authors Avatar

As prison populations rise to unprecedented levels, to what extent can it be argued that prisons work?

In recent years the number of people in prison has risen considerably and looks set to continue creeping upwards. This raises questions over why the figures are rising and whether prison works.  To address this, I begin by looking at the historical origins of prison, then move on to consider how this has informed present-day thinking about the purpose of prison.  This will include exploration of ideologies of deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, punishment/retribution and denunciation.  I move on to evaluate alternatives to prison and fresh perspectives on the penal system before looking at some reasons for the increasing inmate numbers and considering the effect of the exponential rise on the prison service. Finally, I draw a conclusion about the possible reasons for the tensions in reaching a consensus about what prison is for, plus put forward suggestions for supporting the prison service and help it to work for inmates and society alike.

Early 12th century prisons served a coercive/custodial function, mainly detaining people until civil debts were met.  A prison’s effectiveness was measured by its success in holding people until this occurred (Muncie, 2001, pp159-160). Six hundred years later, the rationale behind prison changed to one of punishment rather than containment, though the population remained mainly debtors (Muncie, 2001, p162). However, the end of the 18th century saw the rise of the penitentiary, in which prisoners were sorted into hierarchical groups in a regime of punishment and rewards and subjected to hard physical labour and moral reformation (Muncie, 2001, p164). Things moved on apace until, through the work of early 19th century philanthropists, issues such as justice and rehabilitation ascended in the prison system. Philanthropic societies across the UK committed to ushering in better conditions, useful employment and good habits of behaviour through discipline and compassion (Muncie, 2001, pp169-171). Perhaps this formed the inspiration for the rehabilitative yet punitive modern-day prison. With this in mind, I turn now to current ideologies of prison.

 There are many different types of prison, operating at different levels of security (Sparks, 2001, p215). Whilst there is no definitive correlation between rising crime rates and a rising prison population, a link between the two often is assumed (Sparks, 2001, p213). Hence, prisons are seen as a means of controlling crime. Speaking in 2002, the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, said that the purposes of prison were to protect the public, effect appropriate punishment and retribution, and ensure long-term rehabilitation programmes to reduce levels of crime (D315 CD2, 2005).  Prison is used in two different ways: looking backwards and imposing a sentence as a punishment proportional to the crime committed; looking forwards and touting prison as a deterrent against future crimes (Sparks, 2001, p204). I begin by explaining the latter.

 Deterrence is underpinned by classical criminology, ie, individuals make a reasoned decision to commit crimes.  A would-be offender weighs up the benefits of carrying out the offence against the possible disadvantage of going to prison (Muncie and McLaughlin, 2004, p7).   Wilson (2003, p337) and Murray (1997; in Jewkes, 2006, p41) argue that an increased likelihood of penal sanctions decreases instances of crime. Wolpin��s study (in Wilson, 2003, p337) of crime rates in England during the period 1894-1967 supports the view that deterrence impacts positively on crime rates. However, a person committing burglary for the first time in 2004 was twice more likely to go to prison than in 1996 (Morris, 2004; in Jewkes, 2006, p53). Burglaries still occur today so an increased likelihood of sentence does not appear to be a key factor.  Also, in the USA, almost half of the state prison population was imprisoned for offences committed whilst on probation or parole (Murray, 1997; in Jewkes, 2006, p41). Sturt argues that most of the total prison population is comprised of people with a chaotic history of addiction, social exclusion and perpetual unemployment (D315 CD2, 2005), whilst Feeley and Simon (2003, p438) argue that the majority of people arrested are drug users.  Research conducted in 2005 showed that UK drug users commit 57% of all crime (Winnett, 2005; in Jewkes, 2006, p48). These are not conditions for making the type of rational cost/benefits analysis assumed by the ideology of deterrence.  But if locking people away doesn’t prevent crimes, in theory it stops them for the duration of their sentence. I turn now to incapacitation.

Join now!

 This seeks to stop people committing crimes by restricting their freedom, eg, through imprisonment or by imposing supervision orders (Spark, 2001, p204; Feeley and Simon, 2003, p437). Studies claim that a small increase in the prison population and longer custodial sentences can prevent colossal numbers of murders, assaults, thefts, burglaries and rapes that otherwise would be committed (Murray, 1997; in Jewkes, 2006, p41; Wooten, cited in Davis, 2003, p285). Given that almost every prisoner is eligible for release at some point (D315 CD2, 2005; De Haan, 2003, p391), incapacitation can’t work in the long-term.  In addition, Bennett and Leech ...

This is a preview of the whole essay