Prison, Limiting to Violent Offenders

Non-violent offenders can be adequately punished by other means: sentencers have a wide range of options. It is often argued that sentences should be proportionate to the crime committed: more serious crimes should receive more serious sentences. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, sentences are intended to convey moral censure and assist offenders in considering the implications of their actions. Secondly, hard treatment is needed to give individuals a prudential reason not to offend. Offenders are less likely to respond to the moral message if they think that they have been treated unfairly or that others who commit more serious crimes get less severe sentences. However, this does not require the availability of prison. Heavier fines, longer community sentences or curfews can be given to those who commit more serious offences.

Prisons harm offenders: all the available studies suggest that those who are given a custodial sentence are more likely to reoffend than those given a fine or a community sentence, all other things being equal. There are good reasons to support this. Prisons isolate offenders from their families and friends so that when they are released their social networks tend to be made up largely of those whom they met in prison. As well as sharing ideas, prisoners may validate each others’ criminal activity. Employers are less willing to employ those who have been to prison. Such circumstances may reduce the options available to past offenders and make future criminal behaviour more likely. Rehabilitation becomes more difficult. In addition, rates of self-harm and abuse are alarmingly high within both men’s and women’s prisons. This suggests that imprisoning offenders unnecessarily is harmful both for the offenders themselves and for society as a whole.

Prisons should be reserved for those who are dangerous: in addition to the harms above, prisons are much more expensive than other sentences. They should therefore be used simply to incapacitate those who commit violent offences as these individuals are a greater threat to society. Violent offences are more traumatic for the victim and are less likely to stem from unemployment, poverty or a perceived lack of opportunity than property offences such as theft.

Prison is not necessary as a deterrent: it is often argued that prison is a necessary deterrent for both violent and non-violent offenders. There are two ideas here. Firstly, the possibility of being sent to prison is thought to make people less likely to commit crimes. Secondly, those who have been to prison are less likely to reoffend because they don’t want to go back. However, the empirical studies (such as the Cambridge Study on Deterrence) show that offenders are much more affected by the likelihood of being caught than by the sentence attached to a particular crime – so deterrence is a policing, not a sentencing issue. A criminal record and the consequent difficulties, for example in the employment market, are an enormous disincentive for most people. In addition, for a prison sentence to deter people, they have to be aware that prison is the likely sentence; most members of the public are unaware of the sort of sentences received for crimes such as theft or burglary. Finally, many crimes are committed impulsively and deterrence has little impact here.