The Perplexity of Prisons
Introduction
Growing up, my parents always taught me that violence was never the answer. They showed me peaceful role models, and taught me never to fight with my sisters. Sometimes as a kid, I didn’t listen to them, thwacking my sister on the arm when I was annoyed by something she was doing. Over time however, I learned that the ‘thwack’ didn’t convince her to stop the behavior, it just caused her to resent me. There was always a reason why she was participating in her behavior, and my response taught her to try and avoid me, rather than change what she was doing. This idea should be observed by modern governments, showing that punishment for the purpose of retribution is not a viable prevention method.
In one sense, states have learned that payback is not the answer. Following WWII, states made the transition from war to judicial action, fostering a global understanding that violence is no longer a reasonable option when it comes to dispute settlement.1 Although this idea is not always followed, violent militaristic behavior is globally frowned upon. Most states however, have failed to implement this doctrine of repair when it comes to the domestic level: more specifically, when it comes to prisons. In many countries, prisons aimed at retribution are a primary consequence for a criminal offense. This reliance on retributive imprisonment demonstrates a lack of civility in the criminal law sector. Imprisonment has become a very normalized consequence if someone is found liable for a criminal act.
Retributive prisons are primarily intended to punish criminal actors so that they will not reoffend. However, this type of prison has been proven to be ineffective in preventing crime. In fact, punitive imprisonment makes formerly incarcerated people more likely to reoffend than people who had never been to prison. To further explore this issue, it is important to discuss the current state of prison and its consequences, the reasons why prisons developed the way they did, and what actually works to prevent crime.
Prison and Its Consequences
What prisons look like depends heavily on which country is being discussed. The United States is a good starting point for the discussion, since it has consistently had one of the highest incarceration rates in the world since the 1970s/80s following President Nixon’s War On Drugs campaign. Today, there are 335 people in prison for every 100,000 residents. Rehabilitation and retribution are often cited as the primary motivations for sending people to prison. Despite these insanely high numbers, there is no evidence that going to prison in the US reduces recidivism. In fact, former inmates are more likely to reoffend after release. Alternatively, Nordic countries like Norway and Finland, have a much different approach. In the Nordic region, people are much less likely to go to prison for traditionally criminal acts.6 Norwegian prisons are intended to rehabilitate those who have been found guilty of criminal acts. The practices are much more sympathetic to the circumstances of inmates, and they try to help inmates reform themselves to return to normal society. The understanding is that the punishment is the revocation of freedom, and does not need to include any additional consequences. This approach has had a much different effect,with a recidivism rate of 18% (2018), much lower than other regions. The difference between the Nordic and the American approaches lead to huge differences in crime reduction, a trend often seen in criminal data.
Knowing the statistics begs the question: if retributive prisons don’t work, why do they still exist? Primarily, the answer lies in racism, and profit. To begin, prisons disproportionately affect people of color. As previously mentioned, the “War on Drugs” movement that was started by US President Nixon in the 1970s had a huge impact on US and global drug policy, pushing criminalization and higher penalties for drug offences. These policies, famously rooted in racist ideas, were aimed at imprisoning people of color. Over-criminalization remains as a tool of oppression, perpetuated by prejudice, as seen in the historical roots of crimes like loitering and jaywalking.
To make matters worse, in the United States, prisons remain a large component of private industry, raking in four billion dollars per year. Not only are prisons an industry by themselves, but in the US slave labor is legal if someone has been convicted of a crime. Incarcerated people are then used when the prison contracts with outside corporations, such as Victoria’s Secret or McDonalds. This motivates policy makers and prison owners to keep business booming, regardless of the humanitarian consequences.
What Works?
The success of Nordic prisons was briefly discussed, but what specifically makes them successful? I will continue to use the example of Norway, but of course there are other countries who take similar stances.
In recent years there has been a push for the decriminalization of recreational drug use, treating addiction as a healthcare issue rather than a criminal issue. This reduces the number of people who are going to prison over smaller offences, pushing them instead to seek medical help; which, actively solves the problem of addiction. Pushes towards decriminalization for issues better solved in other sectors of course leads to lower imprisonment rates, lessening the burden on the criminal justice infrastructure. In addition to decriminalization, the addition of social assistance programs heavily reduces crime. Numerous studies have established the correlation between criminal activity and poverty, making it a huge contributing factor.
Conclusion
A book could be written about the different levels of ineffectiveness for punitive prisons around the world. Each country handles crime differently, and no solution is perfect. What we do know though, is that punitive prisons are ineffective. The happiest and safest nations have proven to the world what works: rehabilitation. Regardless, many countries lag behind, fueled by greed and centuries-old racist ideas. Today’s punitive carceral systems are motivated by racism and profit. These systems neglect the supposed purpose of criminal consequences: the betterment of society and crime prevention. The ineffectiveness of these systems is something that researchers have proven over and over again for decades. Just because these ideas are veiled in the facade of “making the world safer” does not mean that they should be believed.