Imprisonment
Prison is a perfect place for adolescents who never want to grow up. Prisoners get to play all day, nap whenever they want, and watch a lot of TV. They play cards, dominos, chess, and when the yard is open, they can play handball, basketball, and all other types of recreational games. All that playing must make them want to take a lot of naps. When they are not playing, they can either watch TV or take a nap. Indeed, prison is the perfect place for adolescents who never want to grow up. However, prison is not so good to those taxpayers who must pay the heavy cost of sentencing criminals to a life of playing and napping.
The following article will focus on the effectiveness and potential problems with the use of imprisonment as a form of punishment. A comparison and contrast of two sentencing schemes applied in California during the 20th Century will be examined in order to gain insight into the effectiveness of each scheme, or lack thereof. Although the California law will be analyzed as an example, many other jurisdictions are turning to lengthy prison sentences discourage felonious behavior. After considering the following insights, one must conclude that crime prevention and punishment are incompatible.
The Purpose of Imprisonment
In 1976, California repealed a sentencing law (The Indeterminate Sentencing Law, ISL) which provided relatively short minimum sentences and long, often life maximum sentences for all acts of criminality. According to Indeterminate Sentencing philosophy, the length of time an inmate will be confined within the minimum and maximum range depended on the offender rather than the offense. For example, someone might be sentenced to imprisonment of not less than one year. Such a sentence would allow the inmate to be released in a matter of months. However, the actual time served would be determined by an administrative agency that would make decisions regarding the inmate’s fitness to return to society and lead a crime-free life. If the administrative agency determined that the inmate is not yet suitable for release, the agency would then recommend rehabilitative programs that might help the inmate to become parole suitable, and thus, ready for parole.
The ISL was repealed in 1977 and replaced with the Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL), which mandated a determinate sentence proportionate to the offense. According to this law, the purpose of imprisonment is punishment, and rehabilitation is of no consequence (Messinger & Johnson, (1978)).
Imprisonment as used as punishment is a form of negative punishment in that it serves to take away positive aspects such as freedom. Thus, it may be very effective for those who value freedom and have something to lose in the free world. However, freedom means little to those whose only choice in life is mere existence. Those without homes will find warmth and comfort in a prison bunk and nourishment in a prison chow hall. Drug addicts will find rest from the drudgery of their addiction and hope from their crutches in the prison programs.
History of Punishment
In addition, history demonstrates ineffective of punishment or the threat thereof. In the 17th century, public executions were common, attracting large crowds to witness the punishment. Consequently, thieves would attend those gatherings to pick the pockets of the public (“A History of Punishment.” Films Media Group, (1998), @12:47). Those pick pockets had no fear of punishment even though they witnessed public executions.
In modern times, people have an enforced right against cruel and unusual punishment that has been commonly inflicted in earlier times. Since torturous forms of punishment have historically been proven to be ineffective, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that the use of imprisonment as a means of punishment, which is simply the loss of freedom, would be even less effective? People have different values for freedom. Law-abiding citizens, for example, would be more deterred with the idea of a lengthy prison sentence than a homeless drug addict. Accordingly, imprisonment as a form of punishment is ineffective.
Society has a right to be protected from criminality, and imprisonment can achieve such goal, but only if the purpose of imprisonment is public safety. If the purpose of imprisonment is public safety, then the Indeterminate Sentencing scheme would be more effective. Suppose, for example, that two young prisoners (20 years of age, for example) both received a sentence. One received a determinate 30-year sentence and must serve at least 85% (25.5 years) of that sentence. The other receives an indeterminate sentence of 5 years to life. The determinately sentenced prisoner is told by prison authorities that, with good behavior, he could be released when he is 45 years old. If the prisoner does not behave, he will still get out when he is 50 years old. The indeterminately sentenced prisoner, on the other hand, is told by the prison authorities that if he becomes suitable for parole, he could get out when he is 25 years old, a young man. However, if he never becomes suitable for parole, he will never get out no matter how old he becomes. What kind of behavioral differences can one expect from such a hypothetical?
By providing relatively minimum sentences with excessively long maximum sentences, perhaps even life maximums, the inmates would be incentivized to participate in rehabilitative programs instead of doing their time while hanging out on the yard with their friends. Also, the determination of the actual time each individual must remain in prison should be made by a panel with great discretion to determine the suitability for release of the inmate based on the unique circumstances of the individual’s criminality. By conducting periodic parole hearings with inmates, the board members might apply a type of latent learning. The latent lessons should be tailored to the individual’s criminality instead of dishing out a predetermined period of punishment without individual consideration.
Conclusion
Since history has demonstrated that even severe, torturous punishment cannot effectively discourage crime, we can conclude that any punishment that can be considered not cruel and unusual punishment would be at least as ineffective. Also, fixed, determinate sentences requiring inmates to only serve the sentence before being released back into society fails to incentivize the inmates to reflect on the wrongfulness of their actions. This is contrary to both public safety and to the inmates whose lives need change. Accordingly, the purpose of imprisonment should not be for punishment but for public safety and rehabilitation of the offender.
References
“A History of Punishment.” Films Media Group, 1998, fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=18566&xtid=10207. Accessed 18 Nov. 2019.
Sheldon L. Messinger & Phillip E. Johnson, (1978)). Retrieved from: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2883&context=facpubs