Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Prison v. rehabilitation
Section G. Crime and punishment

This debate is clearly a broad one, about a spectrum of different cases; no one would advocate abolishing prison altogether, but equally, very few people think it should be possible to imprison someone for literally any crime. The central theme is about a comparison between different systems. In Norway, prison sentences are very rare, and the country has just a single prison, which is broadly quite ’soft’; prisoners are allowed to leave their cells at most times, and are referred to primarily as ’students’, as they spend most of their time in education. By contrast, in the USA, more than 2 million people are imprisoned at any one time, with a further 5 million on parole or probation (allowing them to be called back if they misbehave); this means that fully 2.2 per cent of the US population is under ’correctional supervision’.

Pros

[1] Prison is the right punishment for all crimes against property and all violent crimes. The primary purposes of punishment are deterrent, retribution and prevention. Prison serves all of these purposes well. The threat of the complete loss of liberty in a prison sentence deters potential criminals; criminals who are in prison are prevented, for that period, from committing further crimes; and prison is also society’s way to gain retribution from an offender for what he or she has done. Rehabilitation is not part of the purpose of punishment and is very much a secondary concern of the justice system.

[2] Prison works. Rehabilitation (counselling, psychiatric treatment, and work in the community) is a soft option for criminals who will simply feel that they can continue to offend with virtual impunity so long as they volunteer for counselling and community work. The justice system must be seen to be strong in its imposition of punishments if the fight against crime is to be won. Prison is the best form of punishment to send out this strong message.

[3] For society to function we must maintain a strong sense of individual moral responsibility. We cannot allow people to absolve themselves of moral responsibility on the grounds of ’medical’, ’psychological’ or ’social’ dysfunction. People have even claimed in their defence that they are genetically predisposed to crime and so should be treated leniently. These excuses are simply ways of hiding from the fact of moral transgression. A culture of rehabilitation denies individual responsibility and thus erodes the moral fabric of society. Prison sentences, enforced strictly, reinforce the crucial notion of individual responsibility for actions.

Cons

[1] Prison is the wrong form of punishment for all but the most serious crimes (e.g. rape, murder). If we really want to reduce crime and live in a safer society, we need to understand criminals as well as having our retribution against them for the wrongs they have done. Punishment without rehabilitation is merely dealing temporarily with the symptoms rather than addressing the root causes. A criminal who is put in prison cannot offend for that period of time, but when s/he comes out, s/he will be the same person — or worse — and will simply go straight back to a life of crime. Rehabilitation must go together with deterrence, retribution and prevention as an integral primary concern of the justice system.

[2] Prison does not work. Centuries of reliance on the retributive imprisonment system have failed to stem the increasing crime rate. The way to reduce crime is to change people’s beliefs and habits of behaviour — this is most effectively done by counselling and especially by integration into the community. If young people can be set to work on community regeneration projects rather than sent to young offenders’ centres — which in effect are often little more than ’academies of crime’ — they will have a greatly increased chance of living a life free of crime in the future. In one American study, drugs offenders who spent 12 months in prison followed by 6 months’ drugs rehabilitation and training in skills for future employment had a 50 per cent lower re-offence rate than those imprisoned for similar offences for the whole 18 months.

[3] The autonomous morally responsible self is a myth. The victims of sexual abusers do not go on to become sexual abusers themselves just because, by coincidence, they are morally wicked people too. Children brought up with poverty, drugs and violence do not grow up to be criminals or drug users because they are just morally bad individuals. The advocate of radical individual responsibility is peddling an ineffective, simplistic and vindictive myth. In truth, criminal behaviours have complex psychological and social causes that stretch well beyond the boundary of the individual. Parents, teachers and society at large must be responsible for teaching by example and understanding and healing disturbed individuals. Social regeneration through employment, reintegration of offenders into communities, the renewal of the family, counselling and psychiatry, rather than blank retribution through imprisonment, are the ways to reduce crime.

Possible motions

This House would condemn more and understand less.

This House would be tough on crime.

This House would only use prison for violent offenders.

Related topics

Mandatory prison sentences

Capital punishment

Prisoners’ right to vote, denial of

Zero tolerance

Community sentencing