The Best Punishment for a Crime Should Be a Prison Sentence
Introduction
The argument on whether punishment does indeed prevent crime and the extent to which this punishment deters crime has been of special interest to sociologists and criminologists for a long time. Prison sentences are meant to achieve three key functions: as deterrence for crime; to prevent offenders from committing other crimes; and as rehabilitation centres through behavioural change of the prisoners (Epstein and Betts, 2012). The argument that supports the claim that prisons should act as a place for reform and punishment are largely functionalist in nature. The deterrence function of prison is meant to deter criminals from partaking in other criminal activities. For those who commit crimes, prison should act as a rehabilitation centre, and prison is also meant to punish criminals. However, prisons act as more rehabilitation centres than as sources of crime prevention or deterrence (Easton and Piper, 2016). Moreover, the prevailing prison subculture among inmates has been shown to increase reoffending rates, a further indication that prisons may not actually be the best place to rehabilitate criminals. However, increased incarceration of serious offenders of serious crime has been shown to reduce crime rates. Accordingly, this essay seeks to argue in favour of the claim that prison sentences may be the best punishment for serious or high-level crimes, but not for petty crimes.
Beck and Worden report that many people in Britain are getting increasingly concerned about the huge number of offenders in the country who receive prison sentences, further arguing that prison may not be the best option. This is because prisoners tend to mix with other criminals, a development that reinforces their criminal tendencies, as opposed to deterring them (Beck and Wornden, 2001). However, Siegel (2016) is of the view that fear of punishment such as imprisonment, does indeed deter crime. In this case, subjecting criminals to harsher punishments, such as prolonged prison sentences, reduces the number of people who would be willing to partake in crime.
Elsewhere, Newman, Sather, and Woolgar (2013) identify prisons as the ideal form of punishment for all violent crimes and crimes against property. This is because prison serves all three purposes of punishment, namely, deterrence, prevention, and retribution. Criminals who have been incarcerated in prison are faced with a possible loss of personal liberty, and this alone is enough deterrence for some would-be criminals. Additionally, criminals who are serving time in prison are prevented, at least for the duration for which they have been incarcerated, from partaking in additional criminal activities. Moreover, prisons serve as an avenue that enables society to "gain retribution from an offender for what he or she has done" (Newman et al., 2013, p. 228).
According to the Ministry of Justice in the UK, prison sentence remains by far the best form of punishment for serious criminals. This is because imprisoning them, it means that offenders are removed from society for the duration over which they have been incarcerated, and this offers protection to the public (Great Britain: Ministry of Justice, 2011). In addition, prison also takes away the offenders' liberty. However, far too many prisoners spend a lot of time in prisons just idling as opposed to engaging in meaningful activities. There is a need therefore to ensure that our prisons become places of training and hard work, to send a strong message to the prisoners that they are indeed being punished for crimes committed.
Sociologists who are interested in studying prisons report that they share certain similarities with other types of total institutions. In this case, total institutions refer to social environments characterised by surveillance of every aspect of an individual’s life by the authorities. In prison, prisoners, lose their liberty, in addition to also losing such former statuses as clothes and hairstyles. They are thus compelled by rules to dress in prison uniforms and are also shaved. This process is intended to socialise inmates so that they can behave in a manner that meets the organisation’s needs. However, most of these organisations are also characterised by a strong inmate subculture that specifies how prisoners ought to behave in defiance of the official rules of prison by being loyal to other inmates.
A study conducted by academics from Birmingham University found that tougher prison sentences tended to reduce such crimes as burglary. Additionally, the study noted that there was a decrease in crime rates in the duration over which police managed to detect more offences. This is a sign that the levels of police activity and in this case, increased staffing, resulted in a direct effect on criminal activity. These findings further made the researchers to prison sentences were especially an effective tool in minimising property crime if directed at repeat and serious offenders (Helm and Doward, 2012). For example, by increasing the prison term for burglary by a single month, was likely to result in a 4,800 drop in burglaries in the preceding year, out of a total of 962,700. On the other hand, a one-month increase in prison sentences for criminals involved in fraud activities would lead to a reduction of 4,700 in the preceding year, out of a total of 242,400 offences. Another key finding of the study is that implementing a policy that compels offenders to serve longer prison sentences would also have a considerable impact on reducing crime, partly due to the fact that a higher number of offenders would be incarcerated. According to the report, increase sentencing time is linked to a significant reduction in crime rates, a clear indication that more effective and sustained policing reduces crime.
These findings appear to support various policies instituted by the previous Labour government in the UK which concentrated its efforts on an estimated 100,000 criminals identified as persistent offenders for various types of high percentages of crime. The government also increased funding to the police forces in order to increase their effort to fight crime. As a result of this approach, there was a resultant rise in the number of people incarcerated but at the same time, crime levels reduced markedly (Helm and Doward, 2012). However, the findings of this study have had their fair share of criticism, with some indicating that there is no proof yet that increasing the number of offenders imprisoned leads to crime reduction as there are many international jurisdictions that have realised a reduction in crime levels as well as falling prison numbers. The findings of the previous Government in the UK support this claim, arguing that such factors as improved home security and a benign economy were better predictors at reducing crime rates, as opposed to the reliance on prisons (Epstein & Betts, 2012).
While longer jail terms may work to deter crime, the findings of a study conducted by Dr. Julie Trebilcok, who is affiliated with the Imperial College London under the commissioning of the PGA (Prisons Governors' Association), found out that prisoners preferred doing short jail sentence to community service. The prisoners argued that community sentences were more of a punishment in comparison with short prison sentences which they found quite easier to complete. However, these opinions are more likely to be expressed by the revolving-door prisoners who viewed the quality of life that the prisons offered them as a better option to being in the community because they had nothing much to look forward to (Travis, 2011). According to the study, some of the prisoners indicated that they found it hard to abide by community sentences as it involved dealing with the factors that contributed to their offending, while others indicated that they did not have good relationships previously with probation officers, and this made it easier for them to breach community sentences. The preference for shorter prison sentences in place of community sentences could thus be an indication that community sentences could succeed in changing the behaviour of offenders and hence reduce crime levels, where prisons have failed. The findings could also be an indication that prison sentences may not be the best form of punishment for crimes after all. This is because reoffending rates among offenders who have been incarcerated severally are higher, suggesting that the prison environment may in fact act as a brooding ground for reoffending. Accordingly, community service may actually be a better option for petty offenders who have been incarcerated for short-term prison sentences instead of committing them to prisons. This is based on the findings of the Julie Trebilcok-led study which showed that prisoners are more likely to view payback punishment in the form of community service as a more severe form of punishment, and hence it could deter future crimes.
Conclusion
In sum, prisons are supposed to play three key roles as far as crime is concerned: deterrence of crime; prevention role; and rehabilitation ole by reforming offenders. Increased prison sentences have been shown to reduce crime levels by retaining criminals behind bars, thereby reducing their chances of committing crimes. However, the prison environment has also been shown to increase the likelihood of increased future reoffending. Based on these findings, prison sentences may not actually be the best punishment for all crimes as studies have also shown that community service could be a far more effective deterrence to certain crimes than increased prison sentences.
References
Beck, R., and Worden, D., 2001. Description Truth, Spirituality and Contemporary Issues. Oxford: Heinemann.
Easton, S. and Piper, C. (2016). Sentencing and Punishment: the quest for justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Helm, T., and Doward, J., 2012. Longer prisons terms really do cut crime, study shows. [Online]. Epstein, R., and Betts, G., 2012. Reducing Property Crime through Imprisonment. [Online].
The Best Punishment for a Crime Should Be a Prison Sentence. Breaking the cycle: Government response. London: The Stationery Office.
National Audit Office., 2012. Comparing International Criminal Justice Systems. NAO. [Online]. Newman, D., Sather, T., and Woolgar, B., 2013. Pros and Cons: A Debaters Handbook. London: Routledge.
Siegel, L.J., 2016. Corrections Today. Stamford, Mass.: Cengage Learning.
Travis, A., 2011. Short jail sentence preferable to community service, say prisoners. The Guardian. [Online]. 08 June 2011.
