Introduction
Classic psychosocial research has demonstrated how prisons are advanced and intricate places that can significantly influence individuals incarcerated there. Each nation in the world uses imprisonment as a kind of punishment. It is the most punitive punishment that authorities can impose in most countries. Since World War II, the global rate of imprisonment has risen considerably, however, faster in some places than in others. According to Bentham, empirical considerations should be the basis of punishment and judgment (Semple, 2011). Many proponents of incarceration argue that authorities can justify it by integrating many of the various goals of punishment. Prisons are not adequate measures for limiting long-term crime rates or rehabilitating inmates, yet other alternatives are either undeveloped or too costly to ensure public safety and a practical decrease in crime.
Prisons Do Not Have an Impact on Long-Term Criminal Rates
Reduced crime rates do not correlate with the number of people incarcerated. Though individuals cite it as a deterrent, prison is not reasonably practical, with 420,000 imprisonments a year in the U.S. alone (Yevdokimova, 2019). The incarceration of large numbers of people can potentially increase crime rates due to various factors. According to research, raising the penalty to discourage future offenders is ineffective in deterring future offenders (Hrymak, 2018). The notion of a tipping point identifies the point at which a state’s crime rate begins to rise along with the number of people incarcerated.
Re-offenses are often common, even after spending time in prison. The notion is that increased levels of incarceration sever social and familial ties. These ties are responsible for keeping people out of trouble. While in prison, many people get psychological disorders that result in the re-occurrence of crime when released. According to the Goddard study, the mental capacity of prisoners falls to teenagers’ IQ in almost half the cases – 47% (Linden, 2020). Incarceration is always a burden on society because it leads to several problems. Among them are the destabilization of the economic situation, the load on custody because of abandoned children, and the lack of respect for the court and the investigation. In addition, crime rates can be artificially increased due to a lack of social support groups. It results in a less safe society because of broken families and a high concentration of remaining criminal targets.
The imperfection of the justice system causes problems in sentencing and the continued functioning of society. Sentencing is influenced by ethnicity, race, gender, and many other factors that defeat the purpose of incarceration: awareness and recognition of one’s actions. Discrimination based on gender in the justice system causes significant barriers. Gender inequality is thought to help women in sentencing: for example, the absence of life sentences in some countries (Nowacki & Wingsong, 2017). The same is true for racial disparities: different national groups find themselves more easily found guilty than others because their culture has never been oppressed. Instead of relying on the equal operation of the law, the courts use the tools of discrimination. Moreover, such devices are also used to differentiate society. The rich more easily escape punishment than the poor, which destroys the need for a legal system because money is never enough to buy off a conviction. The system enjoys a legal advantage that does not extend to their actions.
Prisons are Largely Ineffective in Terms of Rehabilitation
Young people are susceptible to turning to life-long criminality rather than rehabilitation-promoted behaviors in prison. It is confirmed that incarceration can discourage future criminal behavior or rehabilitate inmates through vocational education or recreational programs. An additional burden is created by the stigmatization of incarceration and the lack of mechanisms for reintroducing youth into society. Support could remedy the situation, but therapeutic groups poorly focus on post-incarceration behavior.
Often, prison life is traumatizing and creates barriers to assimilating within society, even in the cases of more minor and less violent crimes. For survival in the prison experience, inmates worldwide have always faced a particular combination of circumstances and forces they had to react to and adapt. Adapting to prison is usually challenging, and it can lead to problematic thinking and acting behaviors during the post-prison adjustment phase. The limitations of integration into society are justified by the derealization of prisoners who find themselves in a new, unfamiliar environment. Many formerly jailed persons have a record of substance misuse, and many of them have chronic health problems (Chamberlain et al., 2019). Employers may not see them as job-ready due to this, limiting their employability.
Current Alternatives to Successful Rehabilitation and Assimilation of Violent Offenders
Fines, public stigma, and drug courts can effectively decrease recidivism and white-collar crime driven by status but are ineffective when offenders are wealthy or have committed violent crimes. When psychiatric patients are convicted for trespassing, drug possession, or other nonviolent offenses, the authority should not sentence them to prison or probation, where their sickness is likely to go untreated. Instead, they can go to a court dedicated to providing them with the care and monitoring they require. To ensure criminals stay on track, the judge, attorneys, and community health agencies work to organize treatment. However, these options are only available to people that commit a misdemeanor or a nonviolent felony while suffering from a significant mental illness. Psychologists also weed out applicants who cannot undertake the treatment due to their disease.
The high cost of psychological and medical care in prisons is the key to later integration into society. However, this is not the case in every state, so crime statistics vary widely. Nevertheless, using ways that do not involve incarceration helps the community much more. It is justified by the fact that the methods aim at rehabilitation as a treatment, not punishment for punishment. Improvements in healthcare as an alternative to successful rehabilitations are responsible for enhancing inmates’ overall health and contributing to a decrease in misconduct. When these alternatives appear too costly, they fail to offer successful rehabilitation, making prisons the only option. Underdeveloped alternative rehabilitations may breach human rights rules and norms. Furthermore, regardless of the purpose of imposing a particular option, people must understand that the criminal receiving it will perceive it as punishing.
The main issues faced by the current prison system include the unfair placement of violent and nonviolent offenders together. Keeping someone in imprisonment for a nonviolent crime can raise further issues. Prisons in the U.S. are most often full, and many have overcrowding and a large number of inmates per cell (Yevdokimova, 2019). Treatment difficulties and a lack of proper monitoring can occur in an overcrowded jail. There is no distinction made between nonviolent and violent offenders in most cases. Segregation would keep the two types of criminals apart. Without segregation, a nonviolent offender could be the victim of another inmate’s crime, such as abuse, indecent assault, or theft. In addition, a nonviolent perpetrator may be obliged to use aggression for self-protection.
Conclusion
The lack of resources to facilitate effective rehabilitation is a significant problem affecting prisons. It is difficult to argue in our community that lending money for prisons is as vital as adequate funding for our children’ education or care for the poor. Prisons are costly to construct and maintain once they are functioning. This concept is genuine, especially in prisons built to house troublesome inmates. As a result, improvements are made to the old amenities to keep them running rather than creating new facilities. Furthermore, equipment is frequently antiquated, putting employee safety at risk. These issues might make prisons ineffective in preventing a rise in crime rates.
References
Chamberlain, A., Nyamu, S., Aminawung, J., Wang, E. A., Shavit, S. & Fox, A. D. (2019). Illicit substance use after release from prison among formerly incarcerated primary care patients: a cross-sectional study. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 14(7).
Hrymak, H. (2018). A bad deal: British Columbia’s emphasis on deterrence and increasing prison sentences for street-level fentanyl traffickers. (21st ed.) Heinonline, pp. 150-179.
Nowacki, J. S., & Windsong, E. A. (2019). Structural gender equality and federal sentencing outcomes: A test of the ameliorative and backlash hypotheses. Feminist Criminology, 14(1), 45–64.
Linden, R. (2020). Criminology A Canadian Perspective (9th ed.), pp. 222-241.
Semple, J. (2011). Bentham’s prison: A study of the Panopticon penitentiary. pp. 30-51. Oxford University Press.
Yevdokimova, O. (2019). Imprisonment for life imprisonment in foreign countries law. Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law, 10, 146-151.