Examining Prison And Its Alternative Institutions Criminology Essay

Examining prison house house house signal And Its Alternative Institutions Criminology EssayPrisons agreements around the beingness waste been pursuing an elaboratenessist course for decades. thither atomic number 18 much(prenominal) than than 9.8 million large number held in penal institutions around the world (Walmsley, 2008). Prison establishments ar having an progressively difficult time dealing with the number of off poleers that argon execrationd to go throughcuffs as evident in the overcrowded living conditions and understaffed institutions. At a time when exoteric consumption is under force, regimes ar passel ab place with the daunting task of finding funding to produce new prisons and portion out quick aces. Not surprisingly, prison is increasingly becoming regarded as a scarce and pricy resource. whatever theorists switch argued that on that point prisons should be abolished in exclusively given that they do non fulfil the justifications for punishment. Other theorists devour contended that prisons are the only solution for the most(prenominal) serious plague but they are using upd much too lots and for modest criminal offenses. The term reductionist refers to signifi locoweedt reductions in prison community size (Rutherford, 1984). While there stick to been recent subjoins in the incarceration set up in S arsedinavia and the Netherlands, they arrive traditionally been regarded as successful examples of a reductionist form _or_ system of organization. This essay leave argue, not for the abolition of prisons, but for a drastic reduction in their use by using strategies proposed by Rutherford (1984) applied universally. Strategies to drop the use of prison should start with the prison itself and advantageously reduce the depicted object of the prison so that prison is a scarce resource. Only therefore go forth alternatives to prison be utilise instead of prison and not in additi on to prison.America has the highest incarceration rate in the world at 748 per 100,000 of the cosmos (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). in that location are approximately 2,297,400 volume held in call big bucks and federal prisons and local jails throughout the U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). This is roughly a the skinny of the worlds prisoners and yet America is home to slight than cardinal-percent of the worlds macrocosm (Adam Liptak, 2008). The introduce of calcium houses around 171,275 prisoners which is to a greater extent(prenominal) than than whatever early(a) U.S carry Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). California is a prime example of the countrys increase prison population and the unsustain fitting prison costs. In California alone, the prison system costs the giving medication $10 billion a year (Trachtenberg, 2009). By 2012, the government testament be spending more money on its prison system than its university system (Trachtenberg, 200 9).The construction of new prisons has not cut the unprecedented level of overcrowding or improved conditions in California prisons. There are 33 adult prisons in California and each prison is holding legion(predicate) more inmates than it was intended for (Specter, 2010). Some are attain 300% of their depicted object. The uttermost(a) overcrowding has meant that prison gymnasiums, hallship nominateal and cafeterias are being use to house inmates, and in close to cases the inmates are triple-bunked (Specter, 2010). The inmates sleep in close sweat with one an other, and there is nothing that protects them from being sexually and physically treat by fellow inmates. The crowded and unhygienic conditions, mean inmates are more in all probability to get sick, stay sick, and pass illnesses onto others. Prison overcrowding is directly cogitate to the inhumane conditions that prisoners live in inside many of the worlds prisons.England and Wales too pitch a high prison populati on rate of 153 per 100,000 of the national population. Although the prison population rate in England and Wales is much lower than in America, many countries have rates of below 150 per 100,000. There are 83,392 large number in prison in England and Wales and new and existing resources give necessitate to accommodate a planned prison population of 96,000 by 2014 at an enormous cost (Walmsley, 2008 House of super C, 2010). Recent interrogation shows that prison expenditure in England and Wales increased dramatically between 2003 and 2009 from 2.868 billion to 3.982 billion severally (Centre for umbrage and Justice Studies, 2010). A large number of prisoners are communion cells that were only intended for single use (Millie, Jacobsen Hough, 2003). If this forecast is realised then England and Wales will have the highest imprisonment rate in Western atomic number 63 at 169.1 per 100,000 mint (House of Commons, 2010). The cosmos expenditure is under big(p) pressure in Englan d and Wales and the government unavoidably to decide if it will continue with its prison building course of instruction or invest in the prevention of abuse (House of Commons Justice Committee, 2009).Overcrowded prisons worry in America and England and Wales are a symptom of the working outist movement. The prison population rates are believably to increase annually and because it takes years to bring a new prison into commission the existing prisons are filled over and above their substance (Rutherford, 1984). To deal with the expected increase in the prison population rate expansionist systems tend to have prison-building programmes in place to increase the size of their existing prisons and build new ones (Rutherford, 1984). Rutherford (1988) argues that serious overcrowding stooge attract semipolitical financial aid and lead to closer inspection of the prison system. In California, attention has been drawn to the state of Californias prisons by the assorted lawsuits t hat have been filed a elucidatest the governor and corrections officials by prisoners. In the case of Plata v. Davis in 2002, the state acknowledged that it had not been providing adequate medical aid to meet the needs of prisoners throughout the prison system (Specter, 2010). Based on this and other cases, a accost was set up to address Californias prison crisis which concluded that overcrowding in the prisons prevented the state of California from providing adequate mental and medical health care to its prisoners (Specter, 2010). Following the investigation, the court imposed a population cap of 137.5% of the prisons capacity (Specter, 2010). According to Rutherford (1984), these types of orders can have several types of consequences.First, prison overcrowding can initiate a reductionist movement. Policy cave inrs could be encouraged to make use of early judgment of dismissal mechanisms or set-up more community-establish punishments. For example, in California the state has l aunched a programme to trial shortening the period of time that releasees remain under intensive supervision which can termination for years following their release from prison (Muradyan, 2008). The strict parole conditions mean that offenders are often re bided to prison for parole violations much(prenominal) as missing their appointments (Muradyan, 2008). If minor-offenders are able to stay loot for six-months after their release from prison then their supervision will end early (Muradyan, 2008). In England and Wales, a report on the overcrowding of prisons impregnablely recommends that the government reinvest in community based sanctions for prisoners who are only fourth dimensiond to prison for a short time to reduce the prison population and reduce re-offending (House of Commons Justice Committee, 2009).Second, prison overcrowding can encourage officials to make use of prison facilities in neighbouring jurisdictions (Rutherford, 1984). When the court imposed a population cap on Californias prisons the state began to transfer around 8,000 of its prisoners to facilities outside of California. This solution only succeeds in shifting the problem of overcrowding elsewhere and as we will see in the case of California, it is a short-term solution to a larger problem. The bureau to transfer Californias inmates to facilities in other states expires in July of 2011 (Muradyan, 2008).Third, overcrowding can contribute to the expansion of prison systems. When resources are stretched it can help to secure more resources for the expansion of existing prisons and the creation of new ones (Rutherford, 1984). In response to the prison crisis in California, the state borrowed $7.4 billion make room for 40,000 more prisoners in state prisons and to create 13,000 new county jail beds (Muradyan, 2008). This was a controversial move because the government obtained the financing through lease-bonding, a move that saves the state from having to gain voter approval and cost s more than other types of bonds (Muradyan, 2008).It is clear from this example that there is big money mixed in the expansion of prison systems. nigh prisons are built with borrowed money like in California. The funding for prisons can produce big profits for the close companies that are involved in prison systems throughout the world in one way or another (Christie, 1994). Health care, food services and construction are all heavenss that are expanding fast and providing big profits for private firms (Christie, 1994). Private sector involvement can also be seen in the private-prison itself. In his book, Crime Control as a Product (1994), Nils Christie raises the Copernican point that with this sum total of inter fulfill with private profit interests, even up to the level of private prisons, we are building an important growth factor into the system (pg. 111). The profits associated with private prisons mean big money for private companies who are able to build and run prisons for a fraction of what it costs the government and the government is able to avoid asking the voters permission to build a new prison (Christie, 1994). Christie contendns that an expansionist policy will lead to private prisons and in turn, a focus on financial quite a than humanitarian aims.Although Governments have been adapt towards expansion for decades, a large number are becoming increasingly aware that prison is a scarce resource that is too expensive to maintain. In some countries, this perception is based on the understanding that prison is not fulfilling its key aims of punishment. mayhap other countries are not pleasant using the restriction of liberty as the main form of punishment. alone for a hole of countries, it would seem that a reductionist policy makes more sense than an expansionist one in economic terms.For example, in the Netherlands the terrace believe that prison is ineffective as a punishment and should be used as a last resort (Downes, 1988 81). The Netherlands has maintained a low prison population in the post-war period, a time when other prison populations have sky-rocketed. This is possible due to the short duration of times compared with countries like America (Downes, 1982). There are a number of factors that are likely to have helped to maintain a certain level of penal capacity in the Netherlands.First, penal sentencing and criminal evaluator policy in The Netherlands has traditionally enjoyed a culture of tolerance. The culture of tolerance lead to less prejudice, less discrimination, and reduce the need for harsh punishment (Downes, 1988). A glance at the history of the Netherlands illustrates the long tradition of Dutch tolerance towards minority groups, deviants, and unearthly beliefs and points of view that strayed from the norm. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries The Netherlands was less inclined to use capital and corporal punishment than its European counterparts and notably fewer wartime coll aborators were killed after the war compared with countries such as Belgium and France (Downes, 1988).Second, the culture of tolerance in The Netherlands was allowed to operate in the setting of a politics of accommodation. Criminal jurist policy, for the most part, operated out of the public eye and was free from public opinion. Criminal justice policy was largely admonishmined by a pocket-size group of captain elites who make accommodations with other smaller groups to support tolerant policies. A puke of different groups, even those that supported abolitionism, were a part of the penal reform. Although criminologists with extreme views such as Bianchi, would have been excluded from advisory roles in England and Wales or the coupled States, in The Netherlands radical views on criminal justice are welcomed and the interest of elites with such views serves to lead debates in a direction that would not have been shareed otherwise. The criminal justice bring also remained fre e from unnecessary public interaction. The criminal justice system was run by a small number of highly professional and well educated practitioners.Other theories preserve that a combination of tender developments contributed to the sentencing trends in the Netherlands. There are five major social developments that may have impacted on the military post the comprehensive range of social services, a large number of early days centres, a large number of client-oriented eudaemonia and social-service agencies, responsible reporting by the mass media, and the pressure group activities on be half(a) of the penal reform by the social service agencies (Hulsman, as cited in Downes, 1988 344). Another factor could be that many Dutch quite a little were imprisoned during the War and that this made the Dutch less inclined to administer sentences of imprisonment as they understood the melody that imprisonment can cause (Downes, 1988). Downes (1988) argues that these factors occurred along side the sentencing trends but that they did not needs influence the trends.The trends in the sentencing policy of the Netherlands have remained rather constant. The mild reactions of the Dutch to evil and the co-operation of political parties made it easier for a small group of elites to execute criminal justice policies free from public opinion. social welfare However, maintaining such a stable prison population would not have been come-at-able without the co-operation of the judges. The well-grounded training which places a negative value on imprisonment seems to be important in maintaining the use of imprisonment as a last resort.The reductionist policy was not peculiar to The Netherlands at this time. Scandinavian countries have also enjoyed low levels of imprisonment and humane prison conditions. Although the levels of imprisonment in Scandinavia are also on the rise, the rate of 66 per 100,000 of the population is button up epochally lower than many countries around t he world (Pratt, 2008 Walmsley, 2008). Pratt (2008) attributes the low prison population rates and humane prison conditions to a culture of equating and generous welfare state. The Scandinavian welfare state provided support for anybody that needs it. There were no limits to who could apply for assistance and no shame involved in asking for it (Pratt, 2008). The people of Scandinavia afforded the state a large count of power and paid high taxes in exchange for high levels of security. The state provided security for its people by guaranteeing work and unemployment benefits, social services (medical care, care for the elderly, and improved living conditions for its citizens (Pratt, 2008). Peoples individual interests were secondary to shared common and political goals (Pratt, 2008).In Scandinavia, there was a ecumenicly held belief that a strong welfare state could reduce the problem of crime the way it had reduced other social problems (Pratt, 2008). Crime was viewed as an illnes s that could be do by like any other illness and so the rehabilitation of offenders was an important part of the criminal justice process (Pratt, 2008). The job of the criminal justice system was to treat offenders and then reintegrate offenders back into the community. While in prison, offenders were treated humanely and there was no need for further humiliation because the loss of liberty was the punishment (Pratt, 2008).Furthermore, the social solidarity in Scandinavia meant that offenders were not seen as a dangerous class, merely as another group of welfare recipients (Pratt, 2008). The Scandinavian public seem to be an exception to the increasingly retributory attitudes and policy towards offenders that exists in many countries around the world. Although the support for the rehabilitation of offenders is on the decline, while the use of sentencing and the length of sentences is increasing they are quiesce more inclined than their European counterparts to believe that preve ntion programmes can reduce crime (Demker, Towns, Duus-Otterstrm Sebring, 2008. In addition, less than half of the Swedish public still believe that tougher jail sentences can reduce crime (Demker et al., 2008).The Netherlands and Scandinavia demonstrate that prison populations can be reduced and sustained at low levels. Some general themes have emerged the criminal justice policies are expert and query driven the criminal justice system is not influenced by public opinion or political motives a strong welfare state. perhaps the most important conditions for a successful reductionist approach are a questioning of the prison system and the purposes it serves and an understanding that the prison population is less to do with the amount of crime that occurs than the response to crime by the criminal justice system (Rutherford, 1984).According to Rutherford (1984) the reductionist policy can be applied more universally. Before looking at the ways Rutherford (1984) has proposed to r educe the prison population it is important to acknowledge that the items on the order of business need political support. Politicians need to acknowledge that there are alternatives to prison available, as demonstrated in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Instead of forecasting an increase in the number of people in prison, new low targets should be set. In addition, there must be a desire to push frontward with the reductionist agenda even during hard times (Rutherford, 1984).Rutherford (1984) acknowledges that the ideological concerns of officials inside the criminal justice system significantly influence the policies and procedures that are made. In many countries, there is a political consensus that an approach to crime and wrong-doing should be tough. For example, in England and Wales, the prison system has expanded under both(prenominal) the Labour and Conservative governments. Both Labour and Conservative governments seems to ascribe to the spacious Expectations1ideology as illustrated by their investment in the prison system. To gain political support for the reductionist agenda, people must be made not to like the great expectations approach so that it loses its vote-winning potential. Before any items on the reductionist agenda can be introduced there is a lot of work that will need to be done.Rutherford (1984) proposes nine ways to reduce the prison population according to the reductionist approach (Rutherford, 1984). They are as followsThe physical capacity of the prison system should be substantially reduced.There should be a precise statement of minimum standards as to the physical conditions of imprisonment and these should be legally enforceable.The optimal prison system staff-to-prisoner ratio should be determined and implemented.The prison system should have at its disposal early release mechanisms and use these to avoid overcrowding.Certain categories of persons sentenced to imprisonment should, if the space be not immediately available , wait until called-up by the prison system.Sentencing discretion should be structured towards use of the least restrictive sanction. wear or default of non-custodial sanctions should only exceptionally be dealt with by imprisonment.The range of non-imprisonable offences should be widened to include certain categories of thieving.The ground of the criminal law should be considerably narrowed (Rutherford, 1984 p. 175-176)To control overcrowding, Rutherford (1984) encourages the use of early release mechanisms. intelligence as a form of early release can play a major part in find sentence length and the size of the prison population. Parole is already being used in places like Australia, United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand (Ministry of Justice, 2010). Generally speaking, parole is the release of an offender on the grounds that they adhere to conditions decided upon prior to their release and that these conditions are in effect until the full term of their sentence is up.Narrow ing the scope of the criminal law and widening the range of non-imprisonable offences is important because the majority of people in prison are not serious offenders, they are people who have committed minor crimes or created a social abomination (Rutherford, 1984). Rutherford (1984) argues that as long as prison is used instead of providing welfare to these people, governments will not try to find more effective ways of dealing with this behaviour. At one point in time, social nuisances such as sleeping on the streets and begging were imprisonable offences. According to Rutherford (1984) certain categories of theft should also be made non-imprisonable. He proposes that On economic and philosophic grounds, property offences where the amount involved is less than, say 100, should be non-imprisonable. (Rutherford, 1988 182). Perhaps the value of the property stolen is not the best way to decide whether an offence is serious or not in particular when it is as random and innate as R utherford (1984) has suggested. It would make more sense to make all minor thefts non-imprisonable and would also be likely to have a more significant effect on the size of the prison population.An alternative suggestion is decriminalisation. decriminalization has the potential to reduce the prison population substantially if it is applied to dose use. In 2000, a report blamed the US drug contol policies for the sailplaning incarceration rate (Schiraldi, Holman Beatty, 2000). In that same year, nearly a quarter of people imprisoned were imprisoned for a non-violent drug-related offence (Schiraldi, Holman Beatty, 2000). These findings suggest that the decriminalisation of drugs and perhaps other minor non-violent offences could significantly reduce the number of people that enter the criminal justice system.Rutherford (1984) advocates the structuring of sentence discretion towards the use of the least restrictive sanction. To achieve this, Rutherford suggests a commission be set up to determine sentencing guidelines. A sentencing commission would have the difficult task of determining the seriousness of offences. The judiciary are generally given a lot of discretion when it comes to deciding sentences. For sentencing policy to have an impact on the prison population it requires the co-operation of the judiciary.Despite the introduction of non-custodial sentences prison populations have continued to rise. This raises doubts active whether non-custodial sentences are being used in the ways that they were intended. In some cases non-custodial sentences are used in addition to imprisonment or in instances where a custodial sentence would not have been handed down in the first place (Rutherford, 1984). Another concern is that strict conditions often accompany alternative sanctions. If the strict conditions are breached then the person can end up in prison anyway.An example of this is the hang up prison sentence which was introduced into English law in 1967 (B ottoms, 1981). The suspended prison sentence was supposed to be used instead of a prison sentence but it was largely used in cases where a fine or probation would have been previously handed out (Bottoms, 1981). Only about half of the people who received the suspended prison sentence would have in truth been sentenced to prison if it were not for the suspended sentence (Bottoms, 1981). In addition, judges began to hand out longer sentences to people that received the suspended sentence than they would have if the same person was actually sentenced to prison (Bottoms, 1981). These figures provided a strong furrow for the removal of the use of the suspended sentence in England. However, the suspended sentence was implemented in Japan and the Netherlands more successfully. An important difference is that in Japan and the Netherlands, a breach of the suspended sentence does not consequence in imprisonment (Rutherford, 1984). Rutherford (1984) suggests that this difference might explai n why the suspended sentence has contributed to the prison population in England but not in the Netherlands or Japan.The inherent danger of alternative sanctions is that they will supplement rather than replace sentences of imprisonment. Rutherford (1984) recommends establishing a clear understanding of when the non-custodial sentence should be used and what will happen if further offending occurs while the non-custodial sentence is in place. Failure to pay attention to these important issues can have the unintended consequence, as seen in England, of widening the scope of the criminal justice system.Often, strategies to reduce the prison population focus on closes at the rear of the criminal justice process that deal with the prosecution stage. It is important to note that the decision of who enters the criminal justice system is largely outside the control of the government (Rutherford, 1984). The police are involved in crime prevention, recording of crime, and investigation crim e. They are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system and are afforded a great deal of discretionary power in deciding who enters the criminal justice system and who does not. In England, the police decide who to stop and search, who is guilty, and who to prosecute (Poyser, 2004). The decisions that they make have a huge impact on prison put on and policy.Perhaps the best way to restrict the reach of the criminal justice system is to significantly reduce the physical capacity of the prison system. There are three main ways to reduce the prison capacity cease new prison building, phased closing of existing prisons, and refurbish existing prisons. In the Netherlands, prior to 1975, there was a large reduction in the prison population from 6,500 inmates to less than 2,500 inmates. The decrease in prison population size was associated with the closure of sixteen of the countrys prisons. If prison capacity is reduced and no new prisons are built, provided countries do not tolerate overcrowding, prison will be a scarce resource that should be reserved for the most serious crime.A logical extension of the reductionist argument is that prisons should be abolished altogether. Although it may seem a radical idea, a glance at the history of the death penalty tells us that abolition is indeed possible (footnote). This idea has received considerable attention within the field of criminology especially by criminologist Thomas Mathiesen. Over the years, arguments in defence of prisons have focussed on claims about the purposes of punishment and prison. According to these arguments the purposes of punishment are rehabilitation, general prevention, collective and selective incapacitation, and justice (Mathiesen, 2000). Mathiesen addresses each one in turn in his book Prison on Trial (2000).First, Mathiesen (2000) examines recent research on rehabilitation in prisons. The CDATE project is a review of a large number of studies on the rehabilitation of offenders in prison a nd the effectuate of interventions on drug use and recidivism (Mathiesen, 2000). The project found that correctional interventions were not effective in decrease recidivism (Mathiesen, 2000). Interestingly, community based sentences such as parole and probation did not do much better at reducing recidivism. Some of the programmes included in the study actually produced more problems. It is expenditure noting that a number of studies on interventions with an emphasis on developing social skills found positive results (Mathiesen, 2000). However, these studies are few and far between. Rutherford (1984) and Matheisen (2000) both chatter concern over the use of correctional interventions in the prison context. The liberal of ideology that supports the use of prison to rehabilitate offenders ignores the history of research on the topic. Rutherford (1999) is also concerned that rehabilitation is based on the idea that prison works and that offenders can be diagnosed and then treated.T hen, Mathiesen (2000) addresses the idea that prison serves the do of general prevention. The effectiveness of prisons in producing enough fear in people to convince them not to commit crimes has been hotly debated in criminology. Mathiesen refers to Richard Wrights (1994) review of studies on deterrence. Wright (1994) concludes that the greater a persons perceived and actual chances of getting caught are, the less likely they are to commit crime (Wright, 1994). This is also true for later crime. Changes in policy that increase the perceived chances of being caught will reduce crime in the short-term but will not have a lasting effect (Wright, 1994). Furthermore, the expected and actual severity of crime has no effect on offending (Wright, 1994). Taken together, these findings provide no leaven of a preventative effect of the severity of punishment.Next, Mathiesen (2000) looks at incarceration. There are two ways that prison can be used as incapacitation collective incapacitation and selective incapacitation. Collective incapacitation refers to the use of prison to incapacitate offenders based on the seriousness of the crime and to a lesser extent, their prior convictions (Wright, 1994). discriminating incapacitation refers to the use of prison to incapacitate certain offenders who continually offend and pose a risk to law-abiding citizens (Wright, 1994). Wright (1994) argues that a small group of chronic offenders are responsible for the majority of crime committed. Although, prisons do not deter the offenders from committing crime, it can atleast incapacitate them and protect society from the crime of the chronics (Wright, 1994 112). On the other hand, Mathiesen (2000) contends that research provides no support for incapacitation in defence of prisons. Incapacitation does not have a significant effect on the rate of crime nor does it increase the safety of citizens (Mathiesen, 2000). In a review of the related literature, prison and more specifically inc apacitation only had marginal effects on crime (Mathieson, 2000). It is also important to note that even though new generation of criminals will only replace those that are incarcerated and incapacitated. To lock the new chronic offenders onward would only serve to swell the prisons more. The idea of selective incapacitation is even more controversial. Selective incapacitation raises methodological, legal, and moral concerns about the accuracy of predictive measures used to assessment the probability of future behaviours. The problem of false positives (people predicted to continually reoffend that do not) is of import to these arguments. The number of false positives, from prediction instruments, is still very high (Mathiesen, 2000). If the various instruments were put into practice despite their inaccuracy, they would influence the decision making process in court. The chance that a person will re-offend is only one feature that the courts take into account when making their de cisions. Courts also need to consider mitigating circumstances, fairness, and history amongst other things.Finally, proponents of the prison system endorse retribution as an ethical and fair goal for prisons. These beliefs date back to the influential publications of Cesare Beccaria (1964) in On crimes and Punishments. Beccaria disagreed with the barbaric and extreme punishments that were so commonly used in 18th century Europe. Retributivists believe that punishment should be proportionate to the crime. In this case, offenders are punished not for rehabilitation, or to prevent them commiting more crimes, but to give them their just desserts. The just desserts model requires that crimes are rank according to severity, punishments are ranked according to severity, and then the crimes and punishments are matched (Wright, 1994). be punishment