Upon watching this video, you might think that humane prisons are a great idea. You may support having prison be a more livable place for convicts to spends decades long sentences. On the other hand, you might think, “What’s the point of making prisons nice? Jail time is a punishment, not a vacation.” You might wonder what would motivate people to stay out of prison if it’s not such a bad experience. These are a few of the many reactions you could have to prisons with less constriction on personal freedom. These are also the questions and concerns of the national discussion around the purpose of prisons, and how well they accomplish their mission. Experts on criminology debate whether prisons should be responsible for rehabilitating inmates or if they should act as deterrents for criminal behavior. Most prisons value punishment and rehabilitation, denying convicts personal freedoms in the name of justice, while providing programs that encourage personal growth and give inmates important skills for life outside the prison walls (Phelps, 2011). This seems to be a satisfying arrangement for the legal system as well as prison officials (especially since the legal system mostly worries about overcrowding).
However, prisons first and foremost serve as deterrents. They are meant to create restrictive environments to discourage entry, and thus criminal activity. The concept of jail time as being primarily punishment, and not prisoner rehabilitation, raises many questions about how effective it truly is in preventing further criminal activity from its convicts. There are several ways the deterrent model both succeeds and fails in this area.
The current prison system certainly succeeds in keeping criminals out of society, thanks to the legal system’s lengthening prison time and harsher sentencing on more minor crimes like drug offenses and youth violence. This system prevents future criminal activity not only through using prisons as deterrents but also by keeping inmates powerless and locked away from the rest of society. For this reason, sociologists like Michelle Phelps consider prisons to be “warehouses,” storing the “rejects of society” in a space that simultaneously takes away their ability to commit offenses again and houses them in a miserable environment as punishment for what they’ve done.
This was not always so. For centuries prior to the 1970’s, prisons were often institutions of rehabilitation; places where criminals could learn to change their ways and be better members of society (McShane, 2008). However, the 1970’s brought on a surge of scholarly texts and political figures criticizing the rehabilitation model, claiming it to be ineffective and a futile pursuit. Professor Francis Allen attributed this to a changed public mentality following historic events such as the bombing of Hiroshima, Watergate, and the Pentagon Papers. According to him, people had become hardened, and “had increasingly less concern for (and more fear of) felons, who were presented as racialized ‘super-predators’ unable to be reformed. In the infamous words of James Q. Wilson, ‘Wicked people exist. Nothing avails except to set them apart from innocent people’” (McShane, 2008). The public categorized felons as malicious “predators” who were beyond saving. The only solution would be to extract them from society and keep them away from innocent civilians. Thus, a shift from prison as an opportunity for reformation to prison as a means for hiding social rejects accompanied a shift in public mentality of prisoners. Once, prisoners were fellow members of society who had taken a wrong path in life. Now they are a breed of inhuman evil-doers.
Admittedly, this mentality is effective in keeping criminals in check through the legal system. However, it is not helpful in the long run. Once prisoners leave, their life chances are significantly reduced because of their label as ex-convicts. Their chances of finding housing and a jobs (essential components of reintegration) are incredibly difficult, as employers are significantly less likely to hire ex-convicts than other applicants (Pager, 2003) and housing regulations bar them from many housing options (Alexander, 2010). Furthermore, lack of concern over inmate reintegration into society both in and out of prison leaves ex-convicts without the skills or knowledge necessary to reintegrate. As a result, they will be more likely to return to criminal activity as means to make ends meet (Alexander, 2010).
Overall, the deterrent model of prison, where prison is a punishment to be avoided, neglects the rehabilitation model, where prison is an opportunity to reintegrate convicts back into society. Consequently, prisoners struggle to return to life outside the walls, and resort to more criminal behavior for their livelihood. For this reason, the deterrent model is ineffective. Furthermore, public mentality around convicts not only exacerbates their life chances outside of prison, it shapes their daily lives in prison as well by influencing the system which administers punishment and rehabilitation, and thus further impacts the inmates’ life chances.
Works Cited
McShane, Marilyn. “Prisons in America.” 2008. New York, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.
Phelps, Michelle. “Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era: The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality in U.S. Prison Programs” 2011. Law & Society Review. Vol 41, No 1.
Pager, Devah. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” 2003. American Journal of Sociology.
Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow. 2010. New York, The New Press.
Your article is very interesting, well-written, and pertinent to what we have discussed for this class, especially as related to “The New Jim Crow.” I’m interested about the effects of, in the US, the prison system as a deterrent, upon values of formerly incarcerated people, and how this may contribute to their likelihood of turning to criminal activity and perhaps again being incarcerated, other than a lack of resources such as housing and jobs. For example, I can imagine that if somebody was in a prison system that saw its purpose as punishment and a deterrent, and then upon release I was unable to vote, find a job, or find housing, I would probably not value the system at all, and thus not have any desire to uphold certain laws of the nation under which the system exists.
ReplyDeleteThe moral dilemma that the prison system creates, and how we and other countries have dealt with it, is fascinating to me. The use of prisons as a universal punishment in the U.S. for most serious offenses is problematic, for reasons that you have mentioned in your post. The lack of rehabilitation for convicts who will eventually be released frequently only causes more problems down the line, and a very high rate of re-incarceration. I agree that rehabilitation is something that would be very beneficial if it were implemented; however, I would also question how this program would be offered. While prisoners who are serving for serious offenses, such as drug charges, would and should be able to benefit from rehabilitation efforts, I am curious as to the morality of providing these opportunities for individuals charged with offenses such as rape and murder. While rehabilitation should be offered universally, I don't think that the punishment for serious, heinous offenses should be lessened in the slightest. I am curious as to at what point, if any, prisoners would be effectively 'given up on,' and what the criteria would be for providing rehabilitation for prisoners who have committed crimes that are largely seen as unforgivable. I don't have any answers to these questions, but it certainly provides food for thought, and presents an interesting debate that will likely be present in the event of any eventual reform of the prison system.
ReplyDelete