Is it time to abolish prisons?
On today's programme, criminologist Phil Scratan made a case for the abolition of prisons for all but the most dangerous criminals. This means that we would still send murderers, rapists and other violent criminals to prisons, but that those involved in most other kinds of crime (e.g., benefit fraud, shoplifting) would receive alternative punishments (e.g., community service, repayment schemes, etc.). A was developed recently by the former Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten.
Abolitionists argue that the UK's prison policy is in crisis and that we need to rethink our basic approach to judicial sentencing. We are sending too many people to prison, including women and children; and many are more likely to reoffend as a consequence of incarceration. We would reduce crime in the long run by creating drug and alcohol rehab centres, increasing education and training opportunities, giving more social support to offenders, and developing an effective mental health strategy.
That's the argument. It didn't persuade Jim Allister QC, the Independent MEP, who believes it amounts to going soft on crime and removing victims from the moral equation. We also had an interesting contribution from Jonathan Burnside, who teaches Biblical Law at Bristol University Law School. He argued that there were no prisons in ancient Israel -- even though imprisonment existed in the ancient world, because Israel had developed more relationally sensitive approaches to punishment.
You be the judge. Prisons are in the dock. What's your verdict?
Comments
Why was Jim Allister SOOOO angry on the programme? I thought he was going to blow up on air.
I agree with Professor Scratan. We have far too many people in prisons. It costs too much. It doesn't stop people reoffending. If there are other ways to help people move away from crime and at the same time punish criminal behaviour appropriately, I think we should go that route.
Nobody should go to prison for fraud, for example. That's best dealt with by making the person work very hard to pay back the stolen money with interest.
Shoplifting, as was mentioned on the programme today - why are we sending impoverished women to prison for that? It would cost less to take them out of poverty.
Theft, burglary etc - same. Get the person to agree to a contract with society as an alternative to prison. If they refuse to follow the contract, prison is a standby. The contract would require them to work and pay back the money. Meet the victims. Say if the thief stole from an elderly lady, then make that guy work as the gardener in an elderly care centre for 3 years in addition to his probation, training scheme, job etc.
It makes sense to find alternatives to prison. One day we will look back on this century and wonder hoe people could be so idiotic about this subject.
close prisons? we should be building more. the worst reason for not sending someone to prison is that we can't afford it. justice costs money and we have got to keep victims at the top of our list of priorities. victims need to feel that justice has been done. sending a burglar to a training scheme isnt going to make te pensioner whose life he ruined feel any better.
One basic question affects the only rational approach to the debate: What works?
Where are the figures? And what do they say? Do the rates of these crimes go up or down when prison is taken out of the equation? It seems obvious to me that the fact that I may be locked up in the slammer will have a bearing upon my conduct with regard to the law. Sorry to burst anyone's nice liberal bubble here, but community service sounds like fun in the sun in comparison.
I understand very well the desire to find alternatives to prison. But recidivism is the key question: do alternatives work as well?
It was tried and it failed. In the US from the late 1960s to the late 1980s liberals reigned supreme and perpetrators of "victimless crimes," "white collar crimes," crimes by the "disadvantaged" were often given a slap on the wrist if and when they were punished at all. It resulted in a national crime wave that made some areas of some cities no-go zones even for the police. This sparked an intense reaction all across America. Any African American defendent appearing in the criminal court of judge "turn 'em loose Bruce" Wright in NYC got a slap on the wrist at most because that crime was society's fault. The penalty for marajuana use in Michigan was $5. In California the Federal government is thwarting San Francisco's efforts to decriminalize marajuana use. Criminals found out the hard way that the party was over. Some are still finding out. Drug dealers get tough manditory minimum senteces in New York State. Around the nation so do drunk drivers or anyone using a gun in the commission of a crime. Drive drunk, go to jail, no ifs, ands, or buts. In some states it's three strikes and you're out, which means if you are convicted of three felonies you get an automatic life sentence. Manditory minimum sentencing takes the decision of how severe punishment should be out of the hands of judges in some states. In others it's left to a jury to decide. This is not merely a political reaction from the right, it's a grass roots movement from the majority of Americans who want to see justice's terrible swift sword wielded with speed and precision. Liberal politicians and many judges and lawyers hate it but the overwhelming majority of Americans favor the death penalty. Mario Cuomo a famous Governor of New York State lost his bid for re-election and his bid to become president because he advocated abolishing the death penalty. In Maryland, Senator Tydings, a very popular politician went into political oblivion for advocating gun control In the US it is legal to shoot and kill intruders in your home. Americans want "club fed" and "camp cookie" closed to the Martha Stewarts of this world forever. We expect white collar criminals like Bernie Ebbers former CEO of Worldcom and Jeff Skilling the CEO of Enron to spend the rest of their lives in prison where they belong after having ruined countless lives. GITMO is a logical extension of our system, the only reason most of those Americans who want to close it down are opposed to it like President Bush is because of the negative PR it generates, not because its need isn't recognized. There are about 2 million people incarcerated in the US, around 1 out of every 150. If jails get overcrowded, the solution is to build more of them, not let criminals go. We just had a case where two hispanic brothers shot 4 African Americans in Newark NJ in a most heinous crime only one of whom survived. They were apprehended in Washington DC along with a large number of illegal aliens from Peru. I think it is virtually certain they will eventually be executed. Over 70% of the US population opposed the proposed "amnesty" bill for illegal aliens supported by President Bush and a strange coalition of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. They will have to face the voters at the polls next year and will fight for their political lives when their opponents expose their voting records. I think many will be defeated just on the basis of that one vote in congress.
There already is a contract between individuals and society, a very simple one. You can walk the streets, live in your homes, play, work with strong confidence you are safe without carrying a weapon to defend yourself because if someone does attack you, rob you, maliciously or negligently injure you, they will likely be caught and face loss of their freedom to circulate in society. How do you get Jeff Skilling or Bernie Ebbers who is broke to pay back tens of billions of dollars they cost employees their companys' pension funds and others as the result of their fraud? Why shouldn't someone who destroyed a business through fraud which took someone else a lifetime to build go to jail as a consequence? Where is the justice in just demanding community service and how can they pay back their victims with money they don't have?
Those who advocate this lax attitude towards criminals have exactly the same view of life those who advocated it in the US had and the result would be the same. What do you call those who don't learn from other people's mistakes?
Where has Phil been during the last ten years does he not know that in Northern Ireland, two prisons were closed and made redundant so that some of Northern Ireland’s most dangerous criminals, serious offenders, could be released so that Ian Paisley could sit down in government with Martin McGuiness?
Jim Allister was right to point out the bias in the make up of the panel. Typical Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ.
People are peculiarly occupied with the idea that justice should be seen to be done. Is it not more important that criminals should be treated in a way that benefits society best?
I know a solicitor who basically stole $90,000 from his clients' estates to cover his own incompetence. He was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. Who benefited from that? Not society -- he was no longer in a position to do any more harm. Not him, either -- how was imprisonment going to help him reform himself? Not his victims -- they were no more paid back by his imprisonment.
No, what we do as a society is take revenge. How antediluvian! Justice should be looked at with good sense, honesty and an open mind. It should not serve the visceral instincts of the Daily Mail nor the emotional impact upon victims. It should serve the real interests of society.
I didn't think the panel was biased -
Jim A was opposed to abolition
Phil S was in favour of abolition
The woman was addressing female and childrens issues in prisons and didnt take a view on abolition
the other guy was talking about prisons in the ancient world
That's a balanced panel if u ask me
Sam Korn #9
Not one person who was executed ever went on to commit another murder. How does society benefit? By taking the criminal off the streets he is not free to commit more crimes against people who abide by the law at least during the time of incarceration. How did society benefit by putting a criminal who committed fraud in prison for 9 months? It tried to teach him that if he got caught at it again, he'd be forced to go back into what is intended to be a very unpleasant place. With three strikes and you're out, it tells him that if even a second visit doesn't convince him, prison will become his lifelong address. If that's the place he wants to pass his days, all he has to do is keep victimizing other people. The notion that there is good in everyone and that there are no bad boys (or girls) is naive and very dangerous to society. If the government cannot protect the average citizens from criminals, the alternative is vigilante justice and lynch mobs, the people will set up their own extralegal system. We have that too, it's called jury nullification, the jury ignoring the law refusing to punish someone who committed a crime of revenge when they feel it is justified and there is nothing the official legal system can do about it in a democracy except make the laws conform to the wishes of the people. We've been there. And for those who are among the most heinous criminals in our current ethic, paedophiles, it's already all we can do not to have lynch mobs both outside and inside of prison. Even among criminals there is a limit to what they will tolerate in the behavior of other people. The elimination of prison is a prescription for anarchy and gang rule with protection rackets. We've been there in America too.
The punishment of white collar crime in America has assumed new urgency. The belief that criminals who steal money from shareholders, employees, clients can get away with it, shakes confidence in the fairness of our economic markets and diverts investments to places which seem less unfair. The life prison sentences for Jeff Skilling and Bernie Ebbers was more than justified. Martha Stewart got off lightly, much too lightly IMO. Between her insider trading crime and lying to the SEC and FBI she was liable for up to 30 years. She should have gotten at least 5. Insurance fraud and tax fraud are in exactly the same category.
What do you do with people who make and sell fake pharmaceutical drugs, automobile parts, airplane parts? These can kill people. China Inc is becoming a brand which spells DEATH. Legitimate manufacturers there will not be able to sell their products to anyone for fear of the consequences of getting fakes. They'd better crack down soon and hard if they want to stay in business. The recent execution was a good start but they will have to be far more thorough than to find just one scapegoat.
Build more prisons bring back the birch and bring back hanging sack all comunity support officers double the police foree,bring back our troops from Iraq and put them on the streets on a frideay and saturday night,this will take a generation and we will have peace on our streets for our grand children these granny beating scum bags only answer to one language and that is Violence,you do gooders have had your chance and ruined our once great country.step aside and let us reclaim our streets
Wouldnt much more liberal use of the death penality for the worst offenders really cut down on the prison population and tax burden?
JW - I thought you id'd yourself as a liberal on bible/wikipedia so strange you are slamming them now?
David Pawson raises an interesting point that there were no prisons in the Old Testament.
I havent studied it closely but the death penalty applied for around 20 offences, (child abuse, incest, demon worship, bestiality, murder, rape etc), an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth etc.
People who defaulted on debts or stole may have had to serve community service as a "slave" in order to pay off the debt. Again - no prison!
Lets be honest, crims see our system as an occupational hazard and it holds no fear for them.
Is crime an evil choice or an illness? People must take responsibility for their actions.
The NT teaching is the rule for personal relationships but the OT teaches how that state was to administer justice, which is a different issue.
A liberal Catholic friend went on holiday to Saudi Arabia and marvelled at how safe the streets were at night.
Cant condone everything going on there by any means but it would be interesting to compare reoffending rates across a variety of types of system.
Why should punishment be a dirty word for child abusers, rapists and murderers?
For all the libero-fascists out there, perhaps one option could be to hit the crims in the gods; cars, sex, money, drugs, houses, foriegn travel.
Any measures that would genuinely foul up their illegitimate aspirations in these areas might be worth considering!
PB
PB- "I thought you id'd yourself as a liberal on bible/wikipedia so strange you are slamming them now?"
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Are you saying that my theological liberalism is incompatible with what I said about prisons above?
It is my opinion that the argument is not as black & white as prison or not prison. We need to look at rehabilitation & education schemes within the prison. Try to get criminals to understand the basic concept of society and how they can fit into it. People may say this happens, but it clearly is'nt working as it should.
Yes; I believe we need more prisons, a no non-sense attitude is what is required.
Things like fraud are not victimless. If you have ever been a victim of such a crime, you will understand that someone taking my hard earned cash straight from my pocket makes me a victim! Are we to take the consequences of criminal activity away? "Repay society"? If these criminals don't turn up for community service what will we do? not lock them up! If these criminals do not repay victims what must they worry about? A poor credit rating?!
When it comes to murder, terrorism, sexual-abuse, rape etc, I can only see one reason for not having the death penalty, that is the fact that it is obviously not reversable if we get the wrong person. I think that where evidence is black and white, the death penalty should be applied for these unforgivable crimes.
If society goes soft, criminals will have a field-day! I will be living abroad!