An obvious place to start when trying to establish the amount of accuracy in this statement is by looking at reconviction rates, however this is neither simple or necessarily accurate either. Many studies have been carried out over the years in search of the most effective form of punishment but results have been relatively disappointing. Extensive reviews of such research carried out by Lipton, Martinson, Wilks and Brody (1976) have generally found that different penal measures have similarly unimpressive outcomes in terms of re-offending; with little variation being found between straightforward imprisonment and more intensive non-custodial measures in the community. This therefore, does nothing to contribute to the belief that prison is an any more ineffective form of punishment than community sentences which only serves to “make bad people worse” but it is a conclusion which cannot be taken at face value.
As noted by Lloyd and his colleagues (1994) there are many limitations involved in simply using these rates as a measure of effectiveness and although they do not rule out their worth they do emphasise that rates of reconviction are not “neutral, technical…unproblematic or easily understood” (Lloyd, Mair & Hough, 1994, p.3). There are so many factors influencing the accuracy of reconviction rates as a measure of sentence effectiveness that it would be foolish to simply rely on these alone therefore, in order to gain more of an insight into the effects of imprisonment on an individual it is essential to look at the broader picture.
Prison poses many questions as to the actual effect on criminal behaviour and also to the devastating effects it has upon the individual and the families involved. It also presents many issues concerning employment; accommodation and general resettlement once the time has been served (Bingham, 1997, p.11).
In 2001 the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, addressed some of these issues and questioned whether “sending someone to jail for less than six months, costing them their job, and in some cases their family, is helpful in rehabilitating and stopping them offending” (Blunkett, 2001, p.3). He went on to state the importance of considering what the individuals subjected to short custodial sentences are likely to gain in terms of rehabilitation and knowledge. The sad truth in response to this question is that little time and overcrowding make it highly unlikely that prisoners on short term sentences will complete an offending behaviour programme so we need to ask again, what exactly will they learn?
Could it be, as Blunkett himself suggested, that “prisons are colleges of crime where, undoubtedly, people learn more about crime than they will learn anywhere else in their lives” (Blunkett, 2001, p.4) or as similarly suggested by Graef (2001) they will possibly “emerge angrier and better skilled both at heavier crimes and avoiding detection” (p.1).
This brings forward the glaringly obvious fact that prison offers a prime opportunity to deal and mix with many more offenders and the concepts of ‘prisonisation’ and ‘inmate cultures’ are introduced.
The process of ‘prisonisation’ was first spoken of by Clemmer (1940) who described it as “the gradual destructive socialisation of prisoners into the norms of prison life which make it difficult for them to successfully adapt to a law-abiding life outside, thereby possibly deepening criminality” (Clemmer, 1940 cited in Morgan, 1997 p.1178). Many believe that “these conditions of prison life and the experiences they shape contribute to the building of a criminal identity and the persistence, rather than the elimination, of criminal behaviour (Hester & Eglin, 1992, p.247). In the words of Eriksson (1966), “ Such institutions gather marginal people into tightly segregated groups, give them the opportunity to teach one another skills and attitudes of a deviant career, and provoke them into employing these skills by reinforcing their sense of alienation from the rest of society” (p.178). Within these incarcerated societies a culture emerges, ways of doing things and different sets of values, which sees the prisoners and the guards assuming specific characters and roles.
There has been a long-standing debate concerning the sources of these inmate cultures and there has been much discussion as to whether they are primarily of indigenous or imported origin (Morgan, 1997, p.1178). Indigenous theories stress the distinctiveness of prison life because of its all encompassing character and sees them as ‘total institutions’ which almost completely shut off prisoners from the outside world. An example of this is represented in the works of Sykes (1958) who focussed on the ‘pains of imprisonment’ and the many deprivations that living in prison involves. He described the prisoners as being under “psychological assault” (Morgan, 1997, p.1178) and states that the loss of expression of personal identity forces prisoners into individualistic responses which help them to cope with these stresses. These responses can take on a number of different forms but largely develop into prisoner solidarity against staff which, sees a community emerge with its own set of norms and values which, in turn; helps the prisoners to maintain a certain degree of self esteem. Another example of indigenous theory is the work of Goffman (1968) who describes prison as “a place of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time, together form an enclosed, formally administered round of life (p.11).
In contrast to this, importionalist theories stress the connections between relationships within prisons and those outside-for example changes in political expectations or legal culture (Morgan, 1997, p.1178). They believe that the individual roles which are adopted in prisons are simply “extensions of subcultures of which they are part of before being incarcerated” (Irwin, 1970, p.178). That the ‘inmate code’ is an accurate reflection of the criminal code existing in the wider society and that it is brought in by the inmates themselves. This would explain why there is group solidarity between some prisoners within prisons and suggests that this ‘convict’ or ‘criminal’ subculture is both an extension of street cultures and an adaption in response to the contingencies of life outside (Morgan, 1997, p.1178).
At the core of both of these theories lies the belief that, regardless of where these cultures originate from, there is a distinctive culture within prisons which sees prisoners and guards developing categorically specific roles. There have been many studies which observe the relationships between prisoners and guards and the conclusion from one study at Stanford University in 1970 concluded that “the mere act of assigning labels to people and putting them into a situation where those labels acquire validity and meaning is sufficient to elicit pathological behaviour” (Zimbardo, 1982, p.249). They went on to express that, “the prison situation, as presently arranged, is guaranteed to generate severe enough pathological reasons in both guards and prisoners as to debase their humanity, lower their feelings of self-worth and make it difficult for them to be part of society outside prison” (Zimbardo, 1982, p.249).
This conclusion shares a similar basis to that of the ‘labelling theory’ which is also believed to play a part in explaining why some criminals become ingratiated into a ‘convict code’ and possibly go on to re-offend upon release from prison. Some studies reveal that by simply labelling someone as ‘criminal’ and placing them within the prison regime is enough to inspire further criminal behaviour (Haralambos, 1991, p.610). Much of the labelling theory comes from the general sociological perspective known as ‘symbolic interaction theory’ (Haralambos, 1991, p.611) which states that reality is, to a large degree, defined by shared social symbols. If labelling theory is correct then an essential area which needs to be tackled, in order to lower crime rates, is to change the way society interacts with criminals, including those released from prison, to avoid these stigmatised labels from sticking.
In light of these particular theories it could be assumed quite accurately that prison can, in fact, make “bad people worse”. The peculiar and distinctive prison culture coupled with the ‘criminal’ labels and the opportunities to mix with other, more hardened criminals, all act together as a ‘breeding ground’ for further criminal activity which could possibly be avoided if dealt with in the community.
There are many other reasons which suggests that prison is no longer an effective form of punishment, in any kind of rehabilitative terms, and even more suggestions as to why it is actually a highly detrimental consequence. The issue of drugs in British prisons is one, which is at the forefront of its many problems and one which is highly indicative that the statement ‘prison makes bad people worse’ could, in fact, be very true. Jonathan Aitken (2004) said recently of his firsthand experience behind bars that “prisons are no longer just colleges for crime but they are also breeding grounds for drug addiction” (p.1). There is a high concentration of drug use and dependence in the prison population today and studies reveal that the much needed mandatory drug testing (MDT) programme has only served to increase the use of harder drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, in place of the more easily detectable use of cannabis (Gore, Bird & Ross, 1966, p.98).
The issue of drugs is an ever-increasing problem for the prison service and one, which is exceedingly difficult to tackle. If prisoners are entering the regime with a low drug dependency, or no drug problems at all, and are leaving with more severe or new drug problems due to the exposure and availability within the system, then this is a very substantial argument which is clearly in favour of the fact that, ‘Yes-prison can make people worse’.
Prison is a stigmatising and demoralising institution, which cuts ties with employment and families and offers little in terms of effective rehabilitation. Offenders increasingly struggle to gain employment upon release and as noted by Western, (1999) “are likely to develop certain attitudes, mannerisms and behavioural practices that ‘on the inside’ function to enhance survival but are not compatible with success in the conventional job market” (p.6). It is common for inmates to become ‘institutionalised’ within the prison environment and struggle with many aspects of life upon release, feeling ‘out of place’ and having difficulty readjusting to society outside. It is therefore essential that prisons look more closely at how they rehabilitate and prepare inmates for life after their sentence has been served.
This is no easy task but one which could be made a lot easier by the use of effective community sentences. It is true, for most people, that there is a certain category of offenders whose crimes are of such magnitude that isolation is a ‘must’ but surely the use of custody should be restricted to these cases alone (Brownlee, 1998, p.193). And surely outside of these exceptions we need to make use of the “graduated system of realistic, demanding and constructive community sentences (Morris & Tonry, 1999, p.224) which offer punishment alongside the opportunity for rehabilitation and change.
If the government is committed to ‘what works’ as its guide for criminal justice policy and crime reduction, then it must bite the bullet and face down public ignorance and vindictiveness which places prison as the main punitive measure, and all else as ‘soft options’ (Graef, 2001, p.2). The only way that the prison service will ever be able to work effectively with those who really do need to be incarcerated is if they are relieved of the disastrous burden of those who could be dealt with effectively and far less expensively in the community. “Prison makes bad people worse” is fast becoming a very truthful and accurate statement and it highlights a problem which is only going to get worse if something is not done to stop the ever rising population within our country.
