Prison makes bad people worse Essay

In the year 2002, at that place were just entirely over 68,000 persons in prison house in England and Wales, 6,000 in Scotland and 1,200 in Northern Ireland. In the case of England and Wales, this is a few thousand much than in 1999, scarce at this time the plateau stood in marked comparison to the track up to 1997-8 and it was by no means certain that this could be importanttained, (Morgan, 2002). These findings lot to highlight the progressive increase in rising prison come in the UK the defecates of which ar continually in debate and beg the distrust what happens when there is no more room left in our prisons?For the procedure of this essay, this author get ins that the statement prison makes worse throng worse infers that an offender, who serves a custodial sentence, is more likely to re-offend upon release. Before evaluating this statement and comer a conclusion, this author leave alone introduce a brief history of the prison system in an attempt to shot an understanding of how imprisonment has require the close grievous penalty im fuck offd on offenders in the UK to twenty-four hours. Prisons all over the world confirm compriseed for any(prenominal)(prenominal) years for the purpose of secretive those in society who have mailted a crime ripe enough to warrant such a sentence.The purpose of prison is this instant non only to inflict a avengement but in any case to attempt to rehabilitate offenders contrasting with the early days of imprisonment where dinky rehabilitative work was done. A custodial sentence is now the most severe penalty that an offender can be sentenced to in the UK quest the abolition of the death penalty in 1965. Imprisonment is intended to punish offenders through restricting freedom and liberty as well as unfavourable living conditions in the name of less eligibility, (Morgan, 2002).This in no way is intended to suggest that conditions in prisons argon inhumane although reports come through fro m previous investigations that would suggest otherwise. Punishment for offenders was served in a very unalike way of life prior to the nineteenth century. Punishments at this time in the main consisted of somatic penalization which would oft involve torture, universe chagrin and level(p) execution. After decades of this type of penalization being administered, the torture and public humiliation elements ceased.The infliction of physical pain was replaced by the principle that the loss of rights and wealthiness would serve as an adequate deterrent for further offending. Although this altered engineer of punishment apparently focuse on the mind of the idiosyncratic, it could hush up be argued that custodial sentences still impose an element of physical torture indirectly by food rationing, sexual deprivation and solitary confinement. These aspects of punishments are still relevant at heart the penal system today, (Flynn, 1998).Many different explanations exist for why th is change from physical punishment to imprisonment came about, one of which argues that the evidence for the shift was receivable to humanitarianism and reform which would offer a more humane and civilised alternative to the methods of previous years, (Wilson, Ellis, Mikulski, & Nash, 2003). An opposing ancestry suggested that this was non the case and that the defining of a new age and more utile punishment by focusing on the reform of offenders into the disciplined outlet were the main reasons for this shift in operation, (Foucault, 1977).Despite this parentage, one of the most influential factors associated with how prisons operate in the UK today is the concept of human rights. The 1998 Human Rights process governs these rights. Along with this, the Prisons Inspectorate introduced guidelines on what factors should constitute a goodly custodial surroundings based on international human rights principles. Arising from the World Health self-aggrandising medications infl uence, four tests are used to identify whether a healthy custodial surroundings is present. Firstly, prisoners must be held in safety.Secondly, they must be treated with respect and dignity as human beings. Thirdly, they must be able to engage in purposeful activity, and lastly, prisoners must be vigilant for resettlement into the community prior to release, (Owers, 2003). Because of the unpleasantness of imprisonment it is necessary for this type of punishment to be justified. Prison can be very unpleasant for many an(prenominal) offenders as their liberty is severely reduced, their contact with family and friends is minimised, and it can infer many social disadvantages that whitethorn lead to offenders becoming socially excluded upon their release from manacles.In order to justify imprisonment as a viable punishment, numerous theories or arguments have been introduced in an attempt to support this sentencing option. One argument that attempts to justify imprisonment is the con cept of Reductionism. This argument suggests that custodial sentences reduce the chip of crimes committed. Those in agreement with this theory excessively argue that the number of crimes committed will be less if virtuallyone is punished in this manner, than there would be if no punishment were imposed at all, (Cavadino & Dignan, 1997).This theory also suggests that society as a whole, has a greater influence than the individual and therefore an offender would be powerless to justify not red ink to prison if he/she had committed a crime that endangered public safety, (Abercrombie, Hill, & Turner, 1988). However, it could be argued that this theory suggests that crimes are only committed by those who are in prison ignoring the concept that there are many in society committing crimes that have never been caught.Deterrence is another theory used to justify imprisonment as an confiscate punishment by present that people will not offend because they are too frightening of the cons equences should they be caught as the punishment is seen as too severe. There are two elements to this theory, firstly there is individual bullying which suggests that an offender will not re-offend because the punishment they received last time was so severe that it has deterred them from doing it again.Secondly, there is general deterrence which argues that a punishment imposed on one offender for a crime will deter others from offending, as they know exactly what the consequences are. At first glance, deterrence theory come ons to mark well-groundedity, but in reality research findings have indicated that sentencing offenders to custodial sentences has a more influential effect. Once an offender has been in prison they may find themselves labelled by the rest of society and categorised into a stereotype with unfavourable connotations.This may hinder their attempts to live lawful lives for exemplification problems getting a job and so far psychological effects, which may ma ke out apparent in their conduct, (Cavadino & Dignan, 1997). This evidence could be used to support the argument that prison does make people worse. Rehabilitation theory suggests that some forms of punishment can actually reduce the likelihood of re-offending and alter an offenders behaviour and attitude. Together the prison service and the probation service are heavy involved with rehabilitation as well as the treatment and procreation of offenders, (Wilson et al, 2003).As a main aim of the prison service to serve in the rehabilitation of offenders, the provision of accredited programmes such as PASRO (Prisons Addressing warmness Related Offending) and ETS (Enhanced Thinking Skills) attempt to address prisoners offending behaviour whilst in prison. However, a report by the Social Exclusion whole lay out that the prison experience causes such damage to an offenders rehabilitation that it outweighs the effectiveness of the programmes, (Solomon, 2003). some other criticism of th e penal system is that many offenders are sentenced to such piteous periods of custody that they are unable to gain access to any rehabilitative interventions. This evidence could also suggest that prison can make spoilt people worse. The theory of incapacitation implies more emphasis on public bulwark rather than the behaviour of offenders which coincidently is another main remit of the probation service. kinda simply, this theory argues that if an offender is in custody they are unable to commit crime and therefore ensuring public safety for the duration of the sentence giving piece of mind to members of society, (Ainsworth, 2000). It could be argued that this theory fails to recognise that crime often occurs within prisons including violence, bullying and drug offences. Another criticism of this theory is that as mentioned earlier, the public will only be protected in this manner for the duration of a sentence.Lastly, retribution theory holds that punishment is imposed on an o ffender to redress the balance between offenders and their victims in devising genuine that the offender suffers for their crime. Ainsworth (2000), recognises that seeing an offender incarcerated may make the victims feel that referee has been done. However, this is often not the case as many offenders receive sentences that the victim may feel does not reflect the harm that has been caused to them as a result of the offence.Now that some of the justifications for imprisonment have been discussed, it is now mathematical to explore conformity within prisons which may assist in reaching a conclusion on whether the statement prison makes handsome people worse can be justified. Conformity, a theory closely conjugate with labelling theory, suggests that an individual may conform to social rules or may even assume a social role because it is recognised as the norm in their environment. Heavily influenced by the levels of power, social roles exist predominantly in the prison enviro nment especially between prison officers and offenders.One use up that attempted to explore power dynamics and how easy it is to assume a role was conducted in August 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo and was named the Stanford Prison Experiment. Twenty- pentad staminate volunteers took part in the taste and were taken to a mock prison where each person was assigned a role of either prisoner or guard. The guards had the authority to dictate 24 hour a day rules to the prisoners the results of which were shocking and are still referred to today. A number of prisoners had to be released due to mental health illnesses arising from the trauma of the situation.The experiment, which was intended to last for two weeks, was terminate after six days due to the pathological reactions of the prisoners who ironically had been selected for their normality. The findings were that the environment transformed the participants and after a few days, the role dominated the person, (Alexander, 20 01). This experiment highlighted social power as the being the major factor in the participants behaviour as all the guards at some point displayed abuse, authoritarian attitudes, and appeared to enjoy being in control.Zimbardo argued that this abnormal behaviour is a product of transactions within an environment that supports this behaviour. The labels placed upon the participants became valid in this environment and pathological behaviour was the outcome, (Wilson et al, 2003). This experiment still has implications for the prison system today in that Zimbardo argued that the current prison system is guaranteed to cause severe pathological reactions within prisoners causing a debasement of their humanity, pocket-sized self esteem and making it difficult to integrate into society outside of prison, (Wilson et al, 2003).This would suggest that labelling and conformity theories are a case for prison making bad people worse. Whilst in prison an offender may assume a role that could be continued upon their release. Zimbardos experiment provides an adequate rear for discussing the sociological theory of a prison subculture sometimes referred to as the con code. The prison society exists apart from the rest of society and therefore it is comprehendible that norms and values are very different between the two. Sykes (1958) found that the con game code is something that may give a prisoner an identity and athletic supporter them to cope with the effects of imprisonment.The code is thought to include certain rules such as not fraternising with staff, acquiring a position in the bunco game pecking order, and giving the impression of toughness in emotion and physical appearance. Clemmer (1940) argued this to be part of the prisonisation process which arguably reinforces criminal behaviour as prisoners become used to opposing authority which is likely to continue in the outside world, (Cited in Morgan, 2002). Therefore, attempts at rehabilitation may be hindered by this and could be used to argue that prison makes bad people worse.So what statistical evidence is there to support the statement prisons make bad people worse? Reports into the subject have found that prisons have a poor record in reducing re-offending and that 59% of offenders are reconvicted within two years of release. For male youths under the age of twenty-one, the reconviction rate is 74% over the same period of time. Research findings from the Social Exclusion Unit have indicated that re-offending by ex-prisoners costs society approximately ? 11 one thousand million each year and that they are responsible for one in five enter crimes, (Solomon, 2003).This evidence would appear to suggest that people who have served custodial sentences have been made worse by the experience and that imprisonment is not an effective punishment. Contributing to this argument is the theory that these statistics are only obtained from recorded crime suggesting that the figures may in reality b e significantly high as many crimes are not recorded. In conclusion it would appear that there is much evidence to support the claim that prison makes bad people worse such as the statistical evidence unveil reconviction rates.On the other hand, there are also arguments for prison as an effective punishment such as the justifications for imprisonment including rehabilitation and deterrence theories. It would appear that prison does indeed have an influence on some prisoners re-offending but it would be difficult to assume that this is the case for all offenders who have served a custodial sentence. This would suggest that for some offenders prison is effective and for others it is not.Having state this, it is important to recognise that prison does ensure public safety from offenders who pose danger to society, but only for the period they are in custody unless they emerge from prison rehabilitated. For those offenders who could be dealt with in another manner, community penalties offer the versatility in sentencing options necessary to provide effective punishment without contributing to the suppuration problem of increasing prison numbers. It is therefore vital that the most appropriate punishment is imposed individually taking the crime and the offenders circumstances into distinguish when sentencing.