Is Prison Really the Best and Most Suitable Punishment for Criminals?

Article by Nisha Rikhi

Prison is the most severe punishment the criminal court can hand down to a person who is convicted of a crime. It is a severe punishment because it involves the deprivation of liberty of an individual for a set period of time. Prison is the ultimate punishment that should be used sparingly, but in the current climate of prison overcrowding, we need to think about who we should be sending to prison in the first place. This article looks at when prison is the most suitable punishment and why prison may not be suitable for some offenders.

The most dangerous in society:

Prison is the most suitable punishment for the most dangerous criminals. This is where people who can never be rehabilitated are sent to keep the public safe. Deprivation of liberty is sometimes the only way to ensure the safety of the general population. This means that prison should be reserved for the most violent and most dangerous criminals who pose an imminent or immediate risk to the public. It is the ultimate punishment as it deprives someone of their freedom for a prolonged period of time and it means that they are subject to strict conditions on release. This keeps the public safe as the most dangerous people in the country will be subject to lifetime supervision from the state and can be recalled to prison at any time, if it is deemed necessary to protect the public. It makes sense to keep custodial sentences for people who we are afraid of, who need to be locked up to keep the public safe from harm. There is an argument for releasing or not sending to prison those offenders who are on short sentences or who have committed non-violent crimes. This is because by not having these people in prison, we will free up prison spaces for those violent offenders who need to be in prison for public protection.

Non-violent criminals:

Non-violent criminals or criminals on short sentences should not be sent to prison. This is because these offenders have not committed crimes which mandate a lengthy prison sentence, and could be managed in the community. Keeping non-violent criminals or criminals on short sentences out of prison makes it less likely that they will reoffend. Those individuals would not lose their housing or any benefit money they were claiming if they were given community sentences. These are examples of things that offenders lose when they get sent to prison which makes it harder for them to be rehabilitated when they leave prison. Criminals who reoffend are the ones who are homeless and without an income on leaving prison. It is much harder to rehabilitate someone when they leave prison as opposed to rehabilitating someone who does not get sent to prison. This is because it is harder for parolees to obtain housing and employment as they often face lengthy waits and barriers to accessing essential services and support.

There is an argument that an offender who has not committed a violent, serious offence should be punished in the community. Prison is for people who we are afraid of. People who have committed drug offences, property crimes and other disorder offences would be candidates for community punishment. Additionally, offenders who would be in open prison and pose no danger to the public should instead be subjected to stringent conditions in the community. Those conditions could include engagement with probation, home detention curfews, location monitoring, community service, mental health treatment and addiction treatment, for example. Punishing offenders in the community would make it less likely that they reoffend as they won’t lose their housing and income while the imposition of stringent conditions would restrict their freedom in a way that benefits the community. If properly managed, it should therefore be possible to safely and effectively rehabilitate non-violent offenders in the community.

Pregnant women and women with young children:

Pregnant women and women with young children should not be sent to prison. This is because there is a growing body of evidence which shows that putting a pregnant person in prison is dangerous. In the recent news, we have seen that women have been treated very badly by prison officers when they are giving birth in hospital and we have also seen that babies have died, having been born in prison. Therefore, it can be argued that it is not safe to put pregnant women in prison due to the safety risks to both the women themselves and their unborn babies. Having pregnant women in prison increases the risks of babies being born prematurely and increases the risk of stillbirths. We have also seen from the recent news that prisons are not following their own policies with regards to how they treat pregnant women. There have been failures to call for ambulances when women have gone into labour in prison and there have been infant fatalities in prison due to a failure on the part of prison staff to follow Ministry of Justice procedures. There is now an argument for keeping pregnant women out of prison unless they pose a serious risk to the public. Most pregnant women in prison are on remand which means they have not been convicted of a crime. It is unacceptable to keep vulnerable women in prison prior to their trial if they are pregnant and are not accused of committing a violent crime. Therefore, it would make sense to keep these women in the community until they have had their trial.

Women who are mothers of young children should also not be sent to prison, unless they pose a risk to the public. This is because putting a mother who is a non-violent offender in prison is only punishing the child and is considered an adverse childhood experience that can have negative consequences for the child going forward. There is therefore an argument that mothers of young children who do not pose a risk to the public should be given non-custodial sentences. This is because it is better for children and their life chances if their mothers can be kept out of prison as it keeps the children out of the foster care system and off the streets. Furthermore, keeping mothers out of prison, when possible, can reduce their risk of reoffending as their lives will not be turned upside down by losing their housing, jobs and contact with their children upon going to prison. Therefore, if a mother of a young child can be kept out of prison, it would benefit both the mother and the child and would make it less likely that the mother would go on to reoffend.

Drugs, alcohol, prostitution, mental health, veterans:

There is a whole group of offenders who commit crimes due to their social circumstances. Drugs, alcohol, prostitution, poor mental health and being veterans of the armed forces are all factors that can be present in repeat offending. There is an argument that these offenders should not be sent to prison. This is because sending someone with a social reason for offending in prison will not resolve the reason for the offending. In the United States, criminal courts are now taking action and have created treatment courts for convicted criminals. Several counties and states in the United States now have drug courts, alcohol courts, opioid courts, prostitution courts, veterans’ courts and mental health courts, which were all set up with the aim of keeping people out of prison and stopping them from reoffending. These specialist courts keep people from reoffending by dealing with the root cause of their offending behaviour. This benefits both society and the offenders because it forces the participants to change their behaviour and enter treatment for addiction or mental health and it saves the public money by keeping people out of prison, off the streets, in work and off welfare benefits.

Britain could learn from this and set up similar schemes to keep non-violent addicts and other such offenders out of prison, while addressing the addictions or other factors that fuel their offending behaviour. This is because unless the addiction or mental health issue is addressed, these offenders will continue to reoffend. Forcing these offenders into treatment while expecting them to take up paid employment and maintain their housing, benefits both the offenders and the state. There would be fewer people reoffending and being sent to prison, making prison spaces available for violent offenders. The offenders would have a better chance of being rehabilitated by being in treatment, holding down a paid job and keeping their lives running, all of which would be at risk if they were sent to prison.

Therefore, it is clear that there are groups of offenders who should not be sent to prison. Offenders who have not committed violent offences or who are offending because of mental health or addiction should be dealt with outside the prison system. It is arguable that forcing offenders into treatment or paid work, and imposing stringent conditions as part of a community sentence would make it easier to rehabilitate offenders who are not a risk to the public. This is particularly the case when looking at pregnant women and the mothers of young children who face particular risks of being in prison and potentially face particular hardships that make it harder to rehabilitate them in prison. It is clear that we should be keeping the prison spaces for the dangerous offenders who we are actually afraid of. Reducing the prison population by keeping non-violent offenders and those who are offending due to other issues, such as mental health or addiction, out of prison means that we can use prisons for what they are meant to be used for, protecting the public. We protect the public by only locking up those offenders who we are afraid of because they have committed violent crimes and pose an imminent danger to the public. Therefore, it is clear that prison is really only the best and most suitable punishment for violent, dangerous criminals who we are afraid of.