This seeks to prevent people from committing further crimes by restricting their freedom through imprisonment or by imposing supervision orders (Sparks, 2001). Studies have shown that a small increase in the prison population with longer custodial sentences can prevent colossal numbers of murders, assaults, thefts, burglaries and rapes that would have otherwise been committed (Wooten, cited in Davis, 2003, p285). In theory, most prisoners will be eligible for release at some point and there incapacitation cannot work in the long run (De Hann, 2003). In addition to this, Bennett and Leech argue that prisons are like criminal universities and all for opportunities to arise for making new contacts for future criminal collaborations. Sturt states that there are three factors that are essential for a person to led a crime-free life and that without them, the risk of reoffending is inevitable. These are human contact or companionship outside of the prison, shelter and safety and legitimate money (D315 CD2, 2005). Prisoners are often released without having any of these essential elements, which in turn is setting them up for failure.
With regard to rehabilitation, Cullen and Gilbert (2003) claim that there is a popular view of this as a misplaced obligation on “...the state to care for an offender’s needs or welfare”. However, if one of the main purposes of prison is to curb re-offending, then prisoners need more than just incarceration, as this with no treatment or training fosters recidivism (Rose, 2002b; in Jewkes, 2006). Therefore, in line with David Blunkett claiming either “reform or bust”, training and treatment programmes should be available across prisons with the aim to change inmates’ patterns of destructive behaviour and provide improved life chances upon release (Rose, 2002a; in Jewkes, 2006), especially as two-thirds of prisoners are excluded from the majority of career opportunities due to their poor basic education. The potential benefits of rehabilitation to offenders and society are apparent; however, the exponential rise in inmate numbers means that resources are stretched thin.
For many, the true purpose of prison is to administrate punishment onto the bad to effect retribution for the good. This, as Feinberg (1994; in Sparks, 2001) states, gives punishment an expressive function “..punishment is a conventional device for the expression of attitudes of resentment and indignation,...Punishment, in short, has a symbolic significance largely missing from other kinds of penalties’. This involves an element of expression of social disapproval (Sparks, 2001). Foucault (in Box, 2003) argues that prison is one component of a wider carceral, thus a powerful continuum of societal institutions and professions intent on legitimizing subordination of ‘deviants’. He argues that their offences become secondary to the “…attack on the common interest… departure from the norm”. Davis (2003) concurs with this, arguing that the construction of crime and criminals creates self-perpetuating cycles of fear of crime and demand for more prison. In this respect, it could be argued that prison is highly effective as an agent of denunciation. But is it important for society to feel ‘better’ than offenders, or should the focus of prison be on reducing prison numbers, cutting crime and building safer communities?
Crime is a consistent, ‘normal’ facet of society (Muncie, 2001b). According to Durkheim (in Box, 2003), a society without it is impossible; in fact, crime is one of all societies’ defining factors. Due to this, The New Penology was introduced by Feeley and Simon in 1992 as an answer to the way in which some practitioners were adopting the method of using technology and statistical calculations to assess the risk and management of certain levels of offenders. It looks at both the theory and practice of punishment and see’s crime as a normal aspect of society and the only way to deal with criminals, deviant behaviour and the risks that they pose to society, is through the process of crime control and actuarial policies and technocratic forms of knowledge, internally generated by the penal system. This approach focuses on the categories of known and potential offenders rather than individual offenders and changes the direction of crime control as ways of managing the offenders rather than rehabilitating or transforming them. The higher the risk category into which an offender is placed, the longer their sentence. It is not proposed that prison should in effect a change in a prisoner’s life nor have any rehabilitative function. Rather, the new penology views prison as a “social management instrument (Feeley and Simon, 2003).
There is potential conflict between the New Penology, which sees crime as a normal fact of life to be managed using technological tools, and populist punitiveness, which sees crimes as abnormal, to be eliminated, through, for example, zero tolerance, the two may converge in a common focus on incapacitation as a way of managing risk and removing persistent offenders from society (Box, 2003). In the New Penology approach, prison is used to warehouse offenders at high risk of reoffending and because managerial cost concerns are crucial, in theory, prison will be reserved for the highest risk categories (Sparks, 2001).
The concept of warehousing offenders is based on the ideology of retribution and vengeance and passing a punishment that is equivalent to the harm that caused by the offender, thus, the more harm that was imposed on a victim, the longer the prison sentence (Feeley and Simon, 2003) . Obviously, in the UK, the longest form of sentence you can receive is a life sentence and in the USA, a murderer, in some states, is punished with the death penalty. The concept of warehousing offenders though is to keep high risk offenders incarcerated without the chance of parole. It is seen as a regime of extreme crime control based on the notion of containment and isolation of high risk offenders with no concept of treatment, education and training opportunities (Bauman, 2000).
This does not mean that all offenders placed within the warehousing concept will be those who have committed the most serious and extreme crimes, in many cases the majority of offenders that are placed upon this regime as non-violent offenders who have committed petty crimes (Feeley and Simon, 2003). An example of this can be seen through California’s ‘three strikes and you’re out’ approach, were once an offender has been caught committing their third offence, they are automatically given a life sentence, and due to the lack of the essential factors needed in order to lead a crime-free life, many of these offenders are given a life sentence for petty theft crimes.
Another form New Penology influencing current penal policies is the concept of ‘Supermax’ prisons. These are described as control prisons, providing the most secure levels of custody for offenders classified as having the highest security risks, thus holding the ‘worst of the worst’ offenders (Bauman, 2000). The majority of Supermax prisons are located within the USA, although there is only one that is officially located in Colorado. This is down to many states having created their own supermax facilities with are largely hidden from society. There are also a number of Supermax prisons located within the UK (Feeley and Simon, 2003).
The daily life of prisoners are based on the notion of exclusion, they are often kept in solitary confinement for the majority of the day, with the majority of normal everyday activities taking place within their cell, such as eating meals, and when the prisoners wish to exercise this is done alone in a small enclosed area in prison grounds. Prisoners are not allowed to communicate with each other and are rarely spoken too by the prison guards; they are constantly kept under surveillance (Bauman, 2000).
Both the concept of warehousing prisoners and Supermax prisons have generated concern and controversy, mainly around the concept of the prisoners basic human rights. Many have shown that the living conditions are poor and inadequate and can infact cause more harm to prisoners and they mental state, add that to the over-crowding and the enforcement of cruel and unusual punishments and it has been argued that the death penalty is more morally and ethically right that the concept of ‘caging’ humans for life without the chance of parole. Both concepts are also extremely expensive due to the high level of surveillance needed and a high ratio of prison guards to offenders. It has been argued that a prisoner of death row, with multiple appeals can in fact become a cheaper option.
The New Penology has been a significant influence of penal policy, both in the UK and the USA, it has been an influence on current policies and has also been a policy approach itself, particulary in relation to dangerous and sexual offenders. However the implementation of New Penology has been uneven across the Criminal Justice System but De Haan (2003) argues for an abolitionist approach, moving away from seeing prison as the remedy to crime control and instead tackling it through solving social problems in the context of the real, diverse world. His suggestion for “decriminalization, depersonalization, destigmatization, decentralization and deprofessionalization” most likely would be rejected by society – witness the rise of right realism in the 1980s, inspired largely by a population tired of lawlessness (Muncie and McLaughlin, 2004). Von Hirsch (2003) concurs that penalties should fit the severity of the offence, with prison reserved for very serious offences such as murder, rape, armed robbery, and that discretionary rehabilitative measures be taken for lesser offences. Such a birfurcation system has been utilized in the UK for many years, but it is sensitive to public mood (Sparks, 2001).
So why are prisons figures so high and what is the effect on the prison service? Imprisonment as a first resort and for minor offences has been criticised since the late 19th century (Muncie, 2001). However, during the 1990s, there was a rising trend to commit adult offenders to immediate custody (Sparks, 2001). Home detection systems with electronic tagging are not utilised as frequently as was hoped. There is a steady through-put of prisoners with an increase in the numbers of short sentences (Morris, 2004; in Jewkes, 2006); the average custodial sentence is just 6-8 months (D315 CD2, 2005). In addition, broader political policies such as the ‘war on crime’ and ‘prison works’ (Sparks, 2001) have an impact. The effect is that overcrowding is inhibiting potential efficacy of the prison service. Relations across and between staff and prisoners deteriorate (Sparks, 2001). Furthermore, Leech claims that it is pointless to offer rehabilitation for short-stay prisoners, but that daily fire-fighting caused by overcrowding impinges on rehabilitation of prisoners with longer sentences. Sturt describes the exponential rise as the “single greatest impediment” to prisons, in terms of providing decent conditions and rehabilitation programmes (D315 CD2, 2005). On a higher level, the sheer weight of inmate numbers is damaging prison legitimacy and could lead to prisoner revolts (Sparks, 2001). Given all this, it is surprising if prisons provide anything more than perfunctory containment.
In conclusion, it can be seen that there are many ideologies of what prison is for and how well it meets its aims. Some tout crime prevention and protection of the public through the threat of incarceration and incapacitative measures; other espouse treatment and training programmes for inmates to enhance post-prison life chances and provide alternatives to crime. Tensions arise from these competing perspectives, with political and public intuition arguing for more to be done to prisoners and offenders than for them. However, mounting evidence demonstrates that prison doesn’t deter crimes, nor does it prevent recidivism. Prison may assuage an immediate societal need for punishment and retribution, but with increasing percentages of prisoners serving short sentences and coming from chaotic lifestyles of addiction and social/economic exclusion, it makes sense to take a longer-term perspective. Rehabilitation and reform programmes can open up employment opportunities for inmates upon release, plus treatment for addictions can curb the primary reasons for offending. This could encourage would-be offenders to make classical-style pros vs. cons choice about committing crimes, but it fosters more active and positive choices. In addition, community sanctions such as electronic tagging could help preserve the familial ties that are so important for preventing recidivism. For prison ultimately to work, the culture of thinking about prisons and prisoners must change. Firstly, politicians and policy-makers must lose their fear of alienating the public. A shift is required from human warehousing of petty offenders serving short sentences to more measured and concerted efforts to decrease the prison population, and prevent recidivism though in-prison treatment and training, and more joined-up welfare support upon release. Perhaps it is time to look back to the Victorian ethos of compassion to inspire the future of prison. Through these means, real alternatives to crime could be opened up to disadvantaged individuals. Whole communities could then be strengthened and made safer from within, through greater social inclusion rather than some individuals being forced behind prison bars.
References
Bauman, Z (2000). Social Issues of Law and Order. British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 40, Issue 2, pp. 205-221
Box, S (2003). Crime, power and ideological mystification’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Cullen, F T and Gilbert, K E (2003). `The value of rehabilitation’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
D315 (2005) Audio CD 2, Programme 1 ‘Does prison work?’ Open University.
Davis, A Y (2003). ‘Race and criminalizartion: black Americans and the punishment industry’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
De Haan, W (2003). ‘Abolitionism and crime control’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Feeley, M M and Simon, J (2003). ‘The new penology’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Foucault, M (2003). ‘The carceral’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Jewkes, Y et al (2006). D315 Policy File. Thanet Press, Margate. In association with the Open University.
Morris, N (2004). ‘Jails crisis as Britain’s prison population reaches all-time high’. The Independent, 18 February 2004. Copyright The Independent.
Muncie, J (2001). ‘Prison histories: reform, repression and rehabilitation’. In J Muncie and E McLaughlin (Eds). Controlling Crime. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Muncie, J (2001b). ‘The construction and deconstruction of crime’ in J Muncie and E McLaughlin (Eds). The Problem of Crime. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Muncie, J and McLaughlin, E (2004). Theory Guide 1: The Causes of Crime. The Open University.
Murray, C (1997). ‘The ruthless truth: prison works’, Sunday Times, 12 January 1997. Copyright News International Syndiation.. In Jewkes, Y (2006). D315 Policy File, Open University.
Rose, D (2002a). ‘It’s official – prison does work after all’. The Observer, 5 May 2002, Copyright The Observer. In Jewkes, Y (2006). D315 Policy File, Open University.
Rose, D (2002b). ‘Evolution of Britain’s jail revolution’. The Observer, 5 May 2002, Copyright The Observer. In Jewkes, Y (2006). D315 Policy File, Open University.
Sparks, R (2001). ‘Prisons, punishment and penality’. In J Muncie and E McLaughlin (Eds). Controlling Crime. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Von Hirsch, A (2003). ‘Giving criminals their just deserts’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition . Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Wilson, J Q (1983). ‘On deterrence’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition . Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Winnett, R (2005). ‘Crime record shows boot camps work’. The Times, 12 June 2005. Copyright News International. In Jewkes, Y (2006). D315 Policy File, Open University.
