Prison makes bad people worse Essay

In the year 2002, in that respect were just everywhere 68,000 persons in prison house house house in England and Wales, 6,000 in Scotland and 1,200 in Northern Ireland. In the illustration of England and Wales, this is a hardly a(prenominal) thousand more than in 1999, but at this clipping the plateau stood in marked coincidence to the trend up to 1997-8 and it was by no means certain that this could be of importtained, (Morgan, 2002). These findings coif to highlight the progressive increase in rising prison spells in the UK the causes of which atomic number 18 continu all in ally in reason and beg the question what happens when in that respect is no more room left in our prisons?For the purpose of this essay, this writer occupys that the statement prison vexs good-for-naught large number worsened infers that an wrongdoer, who serves a custodial judgment of conviction, is more likely to re-offend upon release. ahead evaluating this statement and r distributiv elying a closing curtain, this author al small(a) introduce a sketch history of the prison schema in an attempt to offer an understanding of how captivity has become the about severe penalization imposed on wrongdoers in the UK now. prison houses all over the world feature existed for umteen eld for the purpose of confining those in baseball club who adopt committed a criminal offence serious enough to phiz such a sentence.The purpose of prison is now non except to cut back a penalization but to a fault to attempt to rehabilitate offenders contrasting with the ahead of time geezerhood of impounding where little reconstructive work was d atomic number 53. A custodial sentence is now the most severe punishment that an offender empennage be sentenced to in the UK following the abolition of the death punishment in 1965. Imprisonment is mean to punish offenders through simplicityricting freedom and self-direction as well as admonitory living conditions in th e name of slight eligibility, (Morgan, 2002).This in no way is intended to project that conditions in prisons ar roughshod although reports exist from previous investigations that would show otherwise. punishment for offenders was served in a very distinct manner prior to the nineteenth century. Punishments at this time in the main consisted of natural punishment which would often involve excruciate, earthly concern humiliation and even execution. After decades of this pillow cocktail dress of punishment being administered, the torture and in the earthly concern eye(predicate) humiliation elements ceased.The infliction of physical upset was replaced by the principle that the loss of rights and wealth would serve as an adequate hitch for further offending. Although this bowdleriseed form of punishment appargonntly foc utilise on the bew be of the individual, it could withal be coped that custodial sentences even so impose an element of physical torture indirectly by food rationing, sexual deprivation and solitary confinement. These aspects of punishments argon still relevant inwardly the penal body nowadays, (Flynn, 1998).M whatever different explanations exist for why this change from physical punishment to chains came about, one of which argues that the reason for the press was overdue to humanitarianism and clean up which would offer a more humane and civilised substitute(a) to the methods of previous years, (Wilson, Ellis, Mikulski, & Nash, 2003). An opposing strain suggested that this was not the case and that the defining of a unsanded age and more effective punishment by focusing on the reform of offenders into the disciplined subject were the main reasons for this shift in operation, (Foucault, 1977).Despite this leaning, one of the most influential factors associated with how prisons ope invest in the UK today is the concept of human rights. The 1998 Human Rights travel governs these rights. Along with this, the Prisons I nspectorate introduced guidelines on what factors should constitute a healthy custodial environment set in motion on international human rights principles. Arising from the field Health Organisations influence, quaternary tests atomic number 18 used to identify whether a healthy custodial environment is present. Firstly, prisoners mustiness be held in arctic.Secondly, they must be treated with respect and dignity as human beings. Thirdly, they must be fitted to engage in purposeful activity, and lastly, prisoners must be prepared for resettlement into the conjunction prior to release, (Owers, 2003). Because of the unpleasantness of durance it is necessary for this face of punishment to be justified. Prison erect be very unpleasant for many a(prenominal) offenders as their liberty is severely reduced, their touch modality with family and friends is minimised, and it can infer many hearty disadvantages that whitethorn lead to offenders becoming accessiblely excluded upon their release from keep.In order to discharge imprisonment as a workable punishment, numerous theories or arguments have been introduced in an attempt to support this sentencing option. One argument that attempts to confirm imprisonment is the concept of Reductionism. This argument suggests that custodial sentences reduce the number of criminal offenses committed. Those in agreement with this surmisal to a fault argue that the number of crimes committed will be less if well-nighone is punished in this manner, than there would be if no punishment were imposed at all, (Cavadino & Dignan, 1997).This theory to a fault suggests that parliamentary law as a whole, has a greater influence than the individual and consequently an offender would be powerless to justify not going to prison if he/she had committed a crime that imperil public safety, (Abercrombie, Hill, & Turner, 1988). However, it could be argued that this theory suggests that crimes are only committed by those w ho are in prison ignoring the concept that there are many in ordering committing crimes that have never been caught.Deterrence is some other theory used to justify imprisonment as an appropriate punishment by arguing that volume will not offend because they are too dreaded of the consequences should they be caught as the punishment is seen as too severe. There are twain elements to this theory, firstly there is individual bullying which suggests that an offender will not re-offend because the punishment they seed last time was so severe that it has deterred them from doing it again.Secondly, there is general disincentive which argues that a punishment imposed on one offender for a crime will deter others from offending, as they fill out exactly what the consequences are. At first glance, deterrence theory appears to hold validity, but in reality research findings have indicated that sentencing offenders to custodial sentences has a more influential effect. at once an offen der has been in prison they whitethorn find themselves labelled by the rest of society and categorised into a separate with unfavourable connotations.This whitethorn hinder their attempts to go unhealthful lawful lives for example problems getting a job and even psychological effects, which may become apparent in their behavior, (Cavadino & Dignan, 1997). This certainty could be used to support the argument that prison does make people worse. replacement theory suggests that some forms of punishment can actually reduce the likelihood of re-offending and alter an offenders behaviour and attitude. unitedly the prison service and the probation service are heavily involved with renewal as well as the treatment and rearing of offenders, (Wilson et al, 2003).As a main station of the prison service to support in the rehabilitation of offenders, the provision of accredited programmes such as PASRO (Prisons Addressing Substance Related Offending) and ETS (Enhanced conception a ttend to Skills) attempt to address prisoners offending behaviour whilst in prison. However, a report by the Social Exclusion building block set that the prison experience causes such price to an offenders rehabilitation that it outweighs the effectiveness of the programmes, (Solomon, 2003).Another review of the penal system is that many offenders are sentenced to such short stops of custody that they are otiose to gain access to any rehabilitative interventions. This try could also suggest that prison can make freehanded people worse. The theory of incapacitation implies more furiousness on public protection preferably than the behaviour of offenders which coincidently is another main remit of the probation service.Quite 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 broad piece of mind to members of society, (Ainsworth, 2000). It could be argued that this t heory fails to jazz that crime often occurs indoors prisons including violence, bullying and drug offences. Another blame of this theory is that as mentioned earlier, the public will only be protected in this manner for the duration of a sentence.Lastly, payment theory holds that punishment is imposed on an offender to redress the balance surrounded by offenders and their victims in making sure that the offender suffers for their crime. Ainsworth (2000), recognises that seeing an offender incarcerated may make the victims feel that justice 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 possible to search conformity within prisons which may assist in reaching a coating on whether the statement prison makes icky people worse can be justified. Confor mity, a theory closely cerebrate with labelling theory, suggests that an individual may conform to fond rules or may even occupy a social office because it is recognize as the norm in their environment. intemperately influenced by the levels of power, social roles exist predominantly in the prison environment curiously between prison officers and offenders.One think over 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-five male volunteers took part in the investigate and were taken to a taunt prison where each person was delegate a role of either prisoner or guard. The guards had the ascendence to dictate 24 hour a day rules to the prisoners the results of which were imposing 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 experim ent, which was intended to last for both weeks, was terminated 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, 2001). This experiment highlighted social power as the being the major(ip) factor in the participants behaviour as all the guards at some point displayed abuse, authoritarian attitudes, and appeared to adore 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 prisone rs causing a debasement of their humanity, low self esteem and making it embarrassing to integrate into society outdoors 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 tooshie for discussing the sociological theory of a prison subculture sometimes referred to as the inmate code. The prison society exists apart from the rest of society and therefore it is understandable that norms and values are very different between the two. Sykes (1958) found that the inmate code is something that may make it a prisoner an identity and encourage them to cope with the effects of imprisonment.The code is thought to include certain rules such as not fraternising with staff, acquiring a set up in the inmate pecking order, and fine-looking the impression of toughness in feeli ng 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 indicate is there to support the statement prisons make bad people worse? Reports into the subject have found that prisons have a short(p) 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 billion each year and that they are responsible for one in five recorded crimes, (Solomon, 2003).This evidence w ould 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 be significantly higher 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 revealing 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 hence 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 oth ers it is not.Having said 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 growing problem of change magnitude prison numbers. It is therefore vital that the most appropriate punishment is imposed respectively taking the crime and the offenders circumstances into theme when sentencing.