After considering the functions of prisons, we should consider the lives of a prisoner. Every prisoner will be provided with three meals each day which are breakfast, lunch and dinner and possibly a snack for later in the day. There are some differences between large and smaller prisons regarding how prisoners receive their meals. In some larger prisons, breakfast is given to the prisoner before they return to their cell for the night whereas in some smaller prisons, inmates will have to go to a specific place like a kitchen to collect the food. Apart from breakfast, the rest of the meals in the day are normally prepared by several staff and a large number of selected prisoners (Coyle, 2005). There is sometimes a gap of up to 16 hours that prisoner do not have any meals provided, therefore, as the gap is more than fourteen hours, a snack and a hot drink must be provided before the prison is locked for the night. Overall the quality of food has improved in recent years and there is current research which shows that there is a connection between the quality of food provided and inmate behaviour. According to Stein (2008), "Our initial findings indicated that improving what people eat could lead them to behave more sociably as well as improving their health.” It was believed that what prisoners eat was affecting their behaviour in prison. A recent study found statistic evidence that changing prisoners’ diets cut violent behaviour by 35% (Gesch, 2003).
Another important issue for prisoners is visitation rights for their families and friends. The length of a visit varies from 30 minutes to several hours dependant on what sentences the prisoners are serving and in which prison they are serving their sentence. In some prisons in Europe, for example Spanish prisons, inmates were visited by families and friends only once a month which lasts between one and three hours (Coyle, 2005). In England and Wales, visits normally last for up to two hours once every fortnight, even for prisoners serving long sentences and that are in a prison far from home. Visits usually take place in a room where tables and chairs are provided. Although the common form of communication is a face-to-face visit, different countries have different rules around methods of visiting. In the United States, physical contact is not allowed; prisoners and visitors were separated by a glass screen and conversations are monitored by staff (Coyle, 2005).These situations only happened to those considered high security prisoners in England and Wales, the reason for these measures are to avoid smuggling during the visit. Normally visits in England and Wales take place in general visiting rooms where staff can see the inmates and visitors but not necessarily hear what is being discussed. A closed-circuit television camera will be switched on to monitor these rooms and all visits are recorded.
Visits are not the only method of contact an inmate has with families and friends. Letters and phone calls are other ways of keeping in touch. According to Her Majesty’s Prison Service, if a prisoner is convicted, they can only send out one free letter every week whereas for those prisoners who have not been convicted and are on remand can send out two free letters every week (HM Prison Service, 2004). There is however, no limit to the number of letters prisoners may send or receive at their own expense, the length of the letters are not limited as well. All the letters to and from prisons were read by staff until the mid-1990s. There are two reasons for that, first, security reasons, staff have to ensure there were no arrangements for escapes or for the smuggling of contraband. Secondly, it was to ensure letters did not contain any bad news which could affect the prisoner emotionally. For example, if the letter contained news about a death in the family or that a partner intended to end a relationship staff had to be aware of and prepare for the prisoner’s possible reaction. Nowadays, there is a limited check on a random sample of 5 per cent of all letters going in and out of the prisons; this is just to make sure the letters did not contain any restricted items, such as drugs and money (Coyle, 2005). The effectiveness of prisons are not affected by the letter itself, however, if letters make a difference to a prisoners well being and it can encourages communication links between families and friends, it could help to change prisoners behaviours thus helping to achieve the aim of the prison. Conversely there is also a risk that a letter may have a negative effect on a prisoner’s behaviour as well. If the letter contains some bad news which leads to emotional distress, self-harming and possibly even thoughts of suicide will affect the effectiveness of a prison. Telephones are an alternative way of keeping in touch with family and friends outside of prison. The aim is to encourage prisoners to take responsibility for maintaining close and meaningful ties (Coyle, 2005). Instead of using phone cards pin phones are now used in all prisons. Prisoners may purchase credit and the cost of phone calls made is deducted automatically from their PIN account (HM Prison Service, 2004). However, understanding how prisoners keep in touch with families and friends is not enough to be able to judge whether prison is effective or not. We would also need to consider health issues relating to prisoners.
According to National Statistics, health problems are quite serious in prisons, there are about 78 per cent of male remand prisoners, 64 per cent of sentenced males, and 50 per cent of sentenced females have some form of mental illness (Maguire et al, 2007). It was believed that the environments lead to the poorer health of prisoners as they do not have enough exercises and access to fresh air whilst in prison. Apart from mental health problems, drug misuse and problems of suicide are both found in prisons. Nearly three quarters of all recent prisoners had used illegal drugs in the twelve months before their imprisonments and over half of them reported that their offences were linked to their drug misuse because they needed money to buy drugs (Coyle, 2005). The prison service has been making great deal of effort to deal with prisoners who misuse drugs, for example, treatment programmes are provided. Prisoners can always get help with their drug problems through programmes such as those run as Voluntary Testing Units, where prisoners are regularly tested for drugs (HM Prison Service, 2004). Sometimes, the feelings of being in custody can be painful and almost unbearable. Some prisoners might feel so desperate that they will harm themselves or even attempt to commit suicide. The concerns around suicide has been on the increase and the prison service has continuous training for staff so they have a better understanding and know how to deal with self-harming prisoners. One of the programmes run by the prison service is the ACCT Plan, which means Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork (HM Prison Service, 2004). This plan aims to provide more individual care to prisoners as well as helping them to reduce their distress. It is hoped that with this more targeted support, the number of prisoners attempting self harm will be reduced.
Overcrowding has always been seen as a negative phenomenon within the British prison service. Overcrowding will lead to a negative psychological response such as stress. In other words, prisoner’s mental health may be affected by overcrowded conditions. Also, overcrowded prisons are more likely to be poorly managed (Gaes, 1985). The overall prisoner to staff ratio is that of 1.4:1 and a prisoner to officer ratio of 2.82:1 (Prison Service, 2005b). It was believed that the larger the population in prison, the fewer correctional staff to monitor prisoner’s behaviours. One of the aims of imprisonment is to change the offender’s life and behaviour. If the prison environment does not manage to change the inmate’s behaviour, how can prisons be considered an effective tool of reform? Therefore an effective prison should not have any problems with overcrowding.
Another important consideration to the effectiveness of prison is the rate of re-offending. The Home Office define re-offending as “the offender has committed an offence within the two year follow-up period of release from prison and was subsequently convicted in court” (Home Office, 2006). A successful imprisonment would stop offenders re-offending after they have been released. However, based on the re-offending statistics provided by the Home Office, imprisonment is not always successful. The overall re-offending rate in 2000 was 57.6 per cent and three years later in 2003, the overall re-offending rate was again 57.6 per cent. As the above statistics show, the percentage of re-offending did not decrease between 2000 and 2003. The majority of released prisoners had committed an offence again within two year; therefore it was shown that prisons did not prevent people from re-offending effectively. There were however, some differences between young offenders and adults and also between the sexes. About seventy percent of offenders aged under 21 were reconvicted within two years compared to just under forty per cent for those aged 30 and over. Around 56 percent of males were reconvicted within two years compared with only forty-five percent of females. However over two-thirds of those with seven or more previous convictions were reconvicted within two years compared with one-quarter for those with no previous conviction. If the prison is to be considered effective, the percentage re-offending should be only the minority of prisoners.
If, as the above evidence suggests, prisons are not as effective as they could be, what are the alternatives? Alternatives to custodial sentences have long existed. There are two main categories of alternatives – those without an element of supervision and those that include supervision (Joyce, 2006). There are a number of non-custodial sentences that lack supervision.
This is given by a police officer for a relatively minor offence. One example of this would be for a motorist who has marginally exceeded the speed limit exceeding the speed limit. Cautioning is another alternative. The cautioning system was initially introduced on an informal basis as a response to juvenile offending and became formalised in 1982 (home office 1994c).
A formal caution is a reprimand given to someone for a low level crime where there is evidence to support a prosecution, and the offender has admitted the offence. This is given by a uniformed police officer and is recorded so that it may be cited to a court if the offender is subsequently found guilty of a crime. In 2003 the criminal justice act introduced a new penalty of Conditional Caution. “... Given to low-risk adult offenders and the government intended to link this disposal to measures which include financial reparation to the victim and community work” (Home Office, 2004: 12).
A Conditional Discharge was introduced by the 1948 Criminal Justice Act. It is a sentence of the court that can lead to imprisonment. It is considered that having to attend court for sentencing may have a preventative effect on the offender’s future behaviour (www.opsi.gov.uk, 1991). A major criticism is that an offender escapes without a meaningful sentence. The court may also dispense a suspended sentence which is similar to a conditional discharge. The threat of prison appears more explicit when suspended.
Fines are the most common sentence dispensed by British courts. The money extracted from offenders goes to the treasury. Non-payment of fines traditionally resulted in a prison sentence. The major problem with fines is the failure to pay them. “In 2002/2003 the payment rate for fines had fell to 55%” (Home Office, 2004: 4). As a result the 2003 Courts Act included an automatic deduction from earnings or benefits for defaulters. Subsequently the collection of fines reached over 73 per cent (Home Office, 2004: 12). This was coupled with an increase in the use of fixed penalty notices to combat low level criminal behaviour.
Binding Over is a sentence used after a verbal undertaking by an offender that they will be of good behaviour. It is mostly used as a punishment for a minor public order offence. If the offender fails to abide with the order they usually face a financial forfeit.
There are a number of non-custodial sentences available to the courts that include an element of supervision. These take the form of community based interventions. ‘Community Sentences’ was a generic term introduced by the 1991 Criminal Justice Act and covered punishments that included attendance centre orders, supervision orders, community service orders, combination orders and curfew orders (Home Office, 1995b).
Community Rehabilitation Orders (CRO) were known as probation orders until the 2000 Criminal Justice Act. They were viewed not as a form of punishment but rather as a form of conditional liberty or “a form of social work with offenders to help them to overcome personal difficulties linked with offending” (Raynor and Vanstone, 2002: 1). These orders can be applied to any offender over the age of 16. The standard CRO usually lasts from six months to three years. They also impose requirements on the offender such as to be under the supervision of a probation officer, keeping in touch as instructed by the court and being of good behaviour and leading an industrious life. Additional conditions may also be imposed (known as probation plus) that can require an offender to reside in a hostel or to attend certain treatment programmes.
Community Service orders (CSO) were introduced in 1973. These orders were put forward as an alternative to custodial sentences and were supervised by the Probation Service. “The ethos underpinning community service orders differed from that of probation orders by emphasising the concern to punish offenders rather than assisting them” (Raynor and Vanstone, 2002: 2). CSO’s require offenders to undertake unpaid work for up to 240 hours for the benefit of the community. Breach of a CSO will result in the offender being returned to court. In 1997, 52000 orders were imposed amounting to six million hours of unpaid activity. Seventy-five per cent of CSO’s were successfully completed (Whitfield, 1998). The main advantage of a community service order over imprisonment is cost. “According to 1996 figures each order costs £33 per offender (Whitfield, 1998: 81).
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduced a new sentence of a curfew order enforced by tagging and was available for offenders aged 16 and over. This was extended in 1997 by the Labour government after proposing that all prisoners serving less than four years be released two months early (subject to a risk assessment) provided they stay at an approved address and adhere to a curfew (usually between 7pm and 7 am). This was monitored by the wearing of an electronic tag (Joyce, 2006). If an offender who was released under this scheme either breaches the conditions of their curfew or commits an offence they are automatically returned to prison. Early evidence suggested that the failure rate of the scheme was only five percent, however, this was claimed to be due to prison governors exercising considerable caution as to whom they released (Shaw, 1999).
In Conclusion, if prison is judged by its ability to fulfil its aims then the evidence would suggest that it is not effective. Of the four main aims of prison only two can realistically be said to be fulfilled. Prison is an effective punishment for inmates. Prisoners not only lose their liberty but are also punished by their loss of contact with family and friends. They are isolated from everything and everyone they know. However, it can also be argued that this is a punishment for the offender’s family and as such is unjust as the family are not guilty of any offence. Another main purpose of prison is protecting the public. This aim also is fulfilled effectively but only on a temporary basis. It is true that whilst an inmate is in prison for burglary he cannot commit another burglary against the general public. It should be noted, however, that prisons are not crime free. Many prisoners suffer assaults at the hands of other inmates and also drug misuse still occurs within the prison walls. Whilst there is overcrowding within prisons assaults and conflict will continue. Prison should also act as a deterrent; however, this is not always the case. If imprisonment is used with sufficient ruthlessness, of course it can act as deterrent (Murray et al, 1997). If everyone who shoplifted was immediately given one year in prison, there is no doubt that shoplifting would be very rare. Many criminals only see prison as an occupational hazard. The risk of being caught and subsequently sent to prison is in decline in recent years. “The risk of going to jail if you committed a crime was cut by 80 percent” (Murray et al, 1997: 1). As the evidence suggests prison no longer acts as a deterrent to many criminals. Finally, the evidence from the Home office shows that the majority of prisoners do re-offend within two years of their release. The majority of inmates have a mental health illness and probably do not receive the medical help they need within Prison. Prisons cost £2 billion in 2001/2 (Joyce, 2006) which is vastly more than a community sentence with supervision would cost. The re-offending rate for community sentencing is similar to that of custodial sentences (Joyce, 2006). Therefore prisons are not as effective as they should be and society should possibly be looking at alternatives to prison for all but the most serious of offences and prolific criminals.
REFERENCES
BOOKS
Coyle, A. (2005). Understanding prisons: Key issues in policy and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Maguire et al, (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. , Oxford: Oxford University Press
Murray et al. (1997), Does Prison Work, London: The IEA Welfare Unit
Prison Service (2005b). Staff Profiles and Projections 2005, Internal Report. Cited from Maguire et al (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ruck, S.K, (1951) Paterson on Prisons: Being the Collected Papers of Sir Alexander Paterson. London: Frederick Muller Ltd. Cited from: Coyle, A (2005). Understanding prisons: Key issues in policy and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Sparks et al, (1996), Prisons and the Problem of Order, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Raynor, P. And Vanstone, M. (2002), Understanding Community Penalties: Probation, Policy and Social Change, Buckingham: Open University Press
Whitfield, D. (1998), Introduction to the Probation Service 2nd Edition, Winchester: Waterside Press
REPORTS
Home Office (1994c), The Cautioning of Offenders, Circular 18/94,
Home Office (1995b) Strengthening Punishment in the Community, Cm 2780, London: Home Office
Home office (2002a) Projections of Long term Trends in the Prison Population to 2009. London: Home Office
Home Office (2004), Reducing Crime Changing Lives: The Governments Plans For Transforming The Management of Offenders, London: Home Office
Shaw, S. (1999), Home Detention Curfew: A Geographical Lottery, Prison Report, 48, August
Stein J. (2008) professor of physiology at Oxford University. Cited from:
Laurence, J (29th January 2008). Prison study to investigate link between junk food and violence. The Independent, Health News
WEBSITES
Gesch B.. (2008), senior research scientist at Oxford University’s physiology department. Cited from: Prison Service decision "stupid" says Ramsbotham. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from BBC Press Office Web site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/02_february/16/prison_food.shtml
HM Prison Service (2004) Other ways to keep in touch. Retrieved 1st May, 2009, from HM Prison Service Web site: http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsupport/keepingintouch/otherwaystokeepintouch/
Home Office (2006) Re-offending of adults: results from the 2003 cohort. Retrieved 10th May, 2009, from Home Office Web site: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb2006.pdf
Office of public sector information (1991), Criminal Justice Act, [online], (updated 1991), available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910053_en_10 [Accessed 5th May 2009]
Self Evaluation
Very early on I found that I may not have made the best of subject choices for a long study. I chose Her Majesty’s Prison Service as I was sure I would have no problem whatsoever locating the information needed to complete this study. I was correct. The problem I did have was there was too much information from a wide spectrum of sources. This has taught me that research is imperative before deciding which subject to study. I also had difficulty writing succinctly because of the abundance of information. I feel that crime was a difficult subject choice for a long study due to the difficulty keeping within the target word count.
I had gathered lots of information for my essay very early on in the process yet time seemed to pass very quickly. Other course deadlines made commitment to this essay difficult. This has taught me to always treat the longer essay as a priority and not leave it lying until last. I have now realised how valuable planning time is. I found it quite difficult to write in an academic style for such a long essay. Reflecting on this, I am sure my writing style will improve with practice. On the whole I found this experience to be enjoyable. Self belief that you can complete the essay regardless of word counts is vitally important.
