What is prison for?

Great Debates
1

What is the purpose of putting a convicted felon in prison? This may seem like a simple question but it isn’t. There are four basic theories (that I’m aware of) to dealing with criminals:

  1. Punish them/intimidate the public into obeying the law. Corporal punishment (flogging, thumb screws etc) is the prime example of pure punishment since it is quick and cheap and does not involve the other 3 theories. The idea is to break the individual down and render him harmless while at the same time keeping the rest of society in fear (this is why these punishments are so often public).

  2. Reform them into productive law abiding citizens. Examples of reform efforts are work-release programs, community service, education, counseling, job training, boot camp (this also has some punishment mixed in but is primarily a reform effort), and various religious or political indoctrinations (not much of this in the US anymore but in communist countries it was big, some call it brain washing). The idea is to remove negative behavior patterns and create new positive ones. That is, to turn the prisoner into a good self-respecting member of society.

  3. Warehouse them/out of sight and out of mind. Criminals are locked away for long terms in huge anonymous prisons so that the public can just forget about them. IMHO death by lethal injection for a vicious murderer after 10 years of appeals is 1% punishment and 99% permanent warehousing (i.e. in a grave). In contrast, death by crucifiction (where it is done in public and the body is allowed to decompose on the cross) is 1% warehousing and 99% punishment/intimidation. Long periods of isolation (as found at Marion Federal Penitentiary and California’s Pelican Bay Shu) are 50% warehousing and 50% punishment since they have been known to drive men insane.

  4. Use them, make 'em work. China is infamous for using its prison population for cheap labor and as a source of donor organs (executed prisoners are routinely harvested for organs). I have heard that everyone in the US federal prison system and many people in the state systems are required to work for pennies an hour (making license plates, bullet proof vests etc.). Community service and work-release programs are mostly reform efforts with a little work (and a little humiliation) thrown in.

It should be obvious that these 4 theories can not all be used simultaneously. If punishment is what you want then you are trying to break a man down and render him harmless. A little bit of punishment is only going to piss the guy off and make him even more violent. Half measures are counterproductive to this theory of controling criminals. If you are trying to reform a person then it won’t help to lock him up with a bunch of shankers and sodomites and then help him get his GED. If you are just trying to warehouse a prisoner then you shouldn’t complain that he has a color TV in his cell. As long as a warehoused prisoner isn’t bothering anyone he should be made as comfortable as possible, no efforts at punishment should be made. If you are just trying to use the prisoner for cheap labor with no efforts at reform, then you have no right to complain when he commits another crime after being released.

I think it is imperitive that we, as a people, decide just what the hell we are trying to accomplish with our vast prison system. Did you know that the US has far more people in prison (2 million was the last statistic I read) than any other nation (including China). We should pick a theory and run with it, my personal favorite is warehousing (i.e. long prison terms with no efforts at reform or punishment, just lock 'em up, turn on the TV, and forget they ever lived). Warehousing is actually cheaper than the death penalty as it is currently used, and reform efforts have been dismally ineffective. America hasn’t had the stomach for serious punishment in a very long time and I don’t want to change that. I am personally opposed to using anybody for cheap labor. I once applied for a job painting walls at a state police station that was being renovated and was told that no one was needed since so many people had been sentenced to community service they had more labor than they knew what to do with.
What do you think?

2

This post actually raises some good questions, though I am not on-line with the OP suggestion.

Personally I think our efforts ought to be spent trying to figure out exactly WHY do people choose to become criminals and prevent that process before it even begins. I know efforts in this direction are being made, but to date have only been partly successful (I say partly given we DO have a downward trend in index crimes)

As far as what we should do with criminals we have now…well obviously reforming them is appealing, but nothing has been empirically validated to work, so I am not holding out much hope there. I guess that leaves us with warehousing until we come up with something better. Hmmm…I guess I do agree with the OP. :slight_smile: I am not opposed myself to the cheap-labor bit myself though. I image there is still enough work in the US without worrying about criminals stealing the scut work.

3

>> Did you know that the US has far more people in prison (2 million was the last statistic I read) than any other nation (including China).

Yes

>> I think it is imperitive that we, as a people, decide just what the hell we are trying to accomplish with our vast prison system.

Good luck. Let me know how it came out.

4

Obviously all those theories apply. The death penalty is often an example of punishment/retribution. A life sentence is warehousing.

The thing is, I think it’s kind of an insult to the dignity of man to lock him up. I think that the purpose of prison should be to reform someone into a productive member of society. Just because we haven’t found anything that works is no excuse to just lock them up and throw away the key. Until something is invented, it doesn’t exist. If everyone thought it’d be good to have something, but looked around and saw it didn’t exist yet, and thus gave up, where would we be?

If we can come up with a succesful reform program, it should be used. Then instead of having a perpetual drain on society, we could derive a benefit from them.

Oh, and I’m not saying the death penalty is bad. I think that some people do need to die. I’m talking about the incurables, the ones who will never do good. They’re rabid. Shoot them.

5

Just some comments:

quote:


Agreed, and I am sure that a woman who has just been raped would also be concerned that her attacker not lose his dignity.
quote:

~~~I think that the purpose of prison should be to reform someone into a productive member of society

Ideally yes.

quote:

~~~Just because we haven't found anything that works is no excuse to just lock them up and throw away the key.

YEs that's a good idea. Why don't we just turn them all lose and tell them we'll give them a ringy dingy once we come up with an empirically validated treatment for criminals. We can get them to promise not to commit any crimes in the meantimes.
quote:

~~~Until something is invented, it doesn't exist. If everyone thought it'd be good to have something, but looked around and saw it didn't exist yet, and thus gave up, where would we be?

Yes dammit, why don't all these psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists get off their asses and invent some treatment that works pronto. Just what do you think forensic researchers have been trying to do all these years?

quote:

~~~If we can come up with a succesful reform program, it should be used.

Of course, I don't think anyone would argue against that. Trouble is: don't got one.

quote:

~~~Oh, and I'm not saying the death penalty is bad. I think that some people do need to die. I'm talking about the incurables, the ones who will never do good. They're rabid. Shoot them.

So what you're saying is that we should let the nice criminals go free. Hey I'm all for that. That should clear about seven people out of the US prison system. But the rest of them let's line em up and shoot em. It sure is a black and white town in which you live.
6

Just wondering if anyone noticed the news lately that a book and a study has been done about our justice system in regards to the predominately black prison population. Don’t ask me to link there are plenty of ways to get to this info it was just in the news last week. We’re throwing black people in jail guys. That’s it. Many of them for drug offenses when white people use just as many drugs. I know it looks like African Americans are more criminal because we’re putting them away at a higher rate. Now with that said what is the system for, beats me? Everyone is so cynical these days that they’re just sure we’re all going to hell in a handbasket. I say, quit whining you bunch of pussies. We live a country that through our government at least tries for the most part to keep order without trampling on the rights of the individual. That’s saying a lot considering the conditions you might find in many other countries.

We read about recidivisim rates and blah, blah, blah all the time. But how often do you ever actually hear a success story? Not that often. Sometimes people really do learn from their mistakes. Sometimes prison is a deterrent. Sometimes these guys actually use prison to change their lives but we don’t hear about that very often do we? No that just isn’t interesting enough and doesn’t fall in line with the “hell in a handbasket” climate our country is in right now.

Read this…statistics show that the overall crime rate is DOWN. Yet people keep bellyaching about it. We’re all a bunch of media junkies buying into the sensationalist headlines they bombard us with everyday. When something good comes along we don’t even notice because we’ve learned that “gravity is because the earth sucks, and especially in America”. What a bunch of spoiled brats we are!

There are people who have survived prison and gone on to lead productive lives. Hey shit happens we just don’t get to hear about it that often. Ever heard of a guy named Nathan McCall? He’s from my home state Virginia, right down the road from me acutally, Norfolk. He went to prison for several years, finished his degree and since then has been a journalist for the Atlanta Ledger Star and Washington Post. He’s also written two books. Then there’s Charles Dutton, you know “Rock” from TV. The guy went to prison, decided he was never going back. You think they’re the only two guys that have ever done their time and didn’t return? Guess we should have locked them up and thrown away the key.

Need2know

7

Let us not forget that China ranks first among the nations of the world in “categories of crimes deemed punishable by death”. They may not have the U.S.'s large prison population, but that’s likely because they tend to kill rather than house their criminals. The exact number of executions is a “state secret”, but Amnesty International reports that at least 1700 people were executed in China in 1998 (and the true number is believe to be much higher). Contrast that with the 68 executions in the U.S…

Also, you left out another important function of prisons: removing the “ne’er-do-wells” from the regular population, or protection of the public at large. It’s not simply a matter of “forgetting” them.

Damn, I used a lot of quotation marks in this post…

8

As with most good questions, Robert Heinlein already dealt with this.

I recommend you read “Coventry” - it’s a short story that can be found in one of his collections.

It was originally published in the magazine Astounding Science Fiction, July 1940, then included in his collections, Revolt In 2100 (1953), and The Past Through Tomorrow (1967).

From an excellent fan review:

It is interesting to note that Heinlein makes two assumptions:
[ul]
[li]He assumes that science can correct this sort of “mental defect.”[/li][li]He assumes the creation of this sort of “inescapable prison.”[/li][/ul]

Once we swallow these pills with him, to story makes some interesting points. More to the point here (in this thread), it makes for an interesting thought experiment:

If we could banish wrong-doers forever (a sort of permanent warehousing as described in the OP), would a criminal freely choose this over being “cured” of his criminal tendencies?

The story is worth a read… it is much better than the sort of “Escape From New York” knock-offs that you may have seen (what was that piece of trash with Ray Liotta? “No Escape?”).

Comments?

9

Needstoknow:

You raised some interesting points. Couple of quick points:

1.) I am not sure what the point of your two anecdotes were. It’s great a few folks do well after prison, but they tend to be the exception (particularly for violent crimes). Nonetheless I don’t think anyone has advocated giving prisoners life sentences for all crimes. They did their time, paid their debt and are making productive lives. I am glad that things worked out. But there are always exceptions, and a couple of anecdotes to not disprove empirical analyses.

2.) It is a shame that there is a racial disparity in the legal system. I wonder how we could change that? Samenow (1987) suggests this is because of economic disparities…white folk are richer and can get better lawyers, minorities are pooper and get PDs. It is unfortunate some people can “buy” there ways out of justice, while some people are jailed because they have addiction problems.

3.) Yes the crime rate is down from the 1980s, but is still the highest it has been since the 1930s (yes the 1930s were as bad as today). It is too early to trumpet the success bells yet, though the trends are indeed encouraging.

10

OP:

Perhaps it should be obvious, but it isn’t. Mind explaining it?

Why not?

Where did the word “just” come from?
avalongod:

If the crime rate is down from the 1980’s, then clearly the crime rate must have been higher in the 1980’s. And if the crime rate was higher in the 1980’s then clearly the current rate can’t be the highest rate. Your statement is obviously false.

11

Lets just tell all the bad guys they were wrong and make them promise never to do that again.

How 'bout this idea, sentence the criminals in kilowatt-hrs and give them a stationary bike/generator

12

Ryan:

You are correct of course, and it was careless wording on my point. I was speaking of the 1990’s and 1980’s together when I said it was still at the highest point since the 1930s, but obviously that was a garbled sentence. I should have said something to the effect of: The 1990s had slightly lower crime than the 1980s, but still within the range of scores not observed since the 1930s. Is that better?

13

Um, Avalon, you misunderstood my post entirely.

I’m not advocating the freeing of all criminals. That would be criminally naive. I’m just saying that locking people up permanently as the best solution for all of it is wasteful. Wastes time, money, space, and god knows what else.

Most of what I was trying to say is that we should avoid punishment for punishment’s sake. We should try to use punishment for the sake of rehabilitation.

It may be an insult to his dignity, but I’d prefer keeping the Dahmer’s locked up until they’re better. If they can’t be made better. Don’t waste money on chemicals or electricity on him, just shoot him.

Now to read the rest of the posts.

14

quote:


This wouldn't be the first time. I am a natural blond. My humblest appologies. :)
15

What I meant was that you shouldn’t try to break a guy down with humiliating punishments (strip searches, beatings, isolation) at the same time you’re trying to build him up with reform efforts (counseling, education) especially if you have no intention of ever paroling him. You are correct, though, it is possible to use all 4 theories on the same prisoner (in succession at least if not in concurrence). You start by punishing the prisoner until he is broken down and begging for mercy, then you could build him back up (reform him) by encouraging him to be a good slave, then you could use him for cheap labor for the remainder of his life sentence (w/o parole of course). If this is your idea of crime control… Are you the Premier of China by any chance?

Well I was making a joke, but if you didn’t get that one try this one: A prison teacher speaking to an inmate being reformed while locked up with monsters: “When that guy is done raping you, could you take this Algebra quiz? You’re doing SO well in your studies and I would hate to see you fall behind and return to your violent destructive ways.”

As in “just” using the warehousing theory of crime control with no efforts at breaking him down, building him up, or using him for cheap labor. I think I should point out that warehousing does not necessarily require a lengthy prison term, but since the system has no expectations of reform how long do you think a murderer, rapist, arsonist, or child molester be locked up? How long for a drug dealer or an aremed robber? This isn’t a rhetorical question, I really want feedback.

16

In reading the threads on prison and punishment, the constant question in my mind is, how many of the people offering opinions have ever been in prison? or know someone who was in prison? I’m not talking about jail for a day or two, or protective custody, or anything like that. I’m talking state or federal prison, hard time.

I’ve been in prison. Not as an inmate – as a volunteer. Spent time inside. Talked to inmates. Saw how they lived, what they did with their days. Got the straight dope on drug use, homosexual rape, and everything else. Many of the guys I talked to were lifers, locked up with no hope of ever walking on free soil. They had nothing to lose or gain by jerking my chain; everything they said was consistent and believable. (Unlike some of the stories from guys who were in for just a couple of years, when it was clear they were working an angle of some kind and dressing up the truth.)

I can’t put it any more simply than this:

Prison is Crime School.

You’re in the same metal-and-concrete hallway and courtyard and cell and cafeteria, over and over, day after day, with the same group of guys. It isn’t really that violent, not like you see on “Oz” or bad prison movies. It’s not for the weak of heart, but if you keep your head down and stay quiet, you can keep yourself fairly safe, generally.

The biggest problem for surviving in prison, far and away, is staving off the pure, unadulterated boredom. Aside from reading the dog-eared paperbacks in the library, or whacking off in the shower, what do you do to fill your time? You talk to the other guys. And what do you talk about? Well, what do you have in common? No need to guess: You discuss how to boost cars, which neighborhoods are easiest to thieve from, how to figure out police patrol patterns, and so on. In a nutshell, being in prison is a crash course in being a better criminal.

The recent “tough-on-crime” measures have taken away a lot of the alternative activities, too. No basketball courts, limited libraries, slashed vocational training… If you remove these options, you force the inmates to associate more closely with one another, thereby tightening the vicious circle, and making the convicts into better criminals even faster.

The OP asked, “What is the purpose of prison?” I would answer that, aside from whatever function might be stated, well-intentioned or not, the actual function of prison, in today’s society, is to make crime worse. The “tough-on-crime” initiatives started in the 80’s, and crime skyrocketed. Now, we’ve got so many people locked up that we’ve finally made a dent, purely by volume alone. If I were a fan of “reductio ad absurdum,” I’d project that in twenty years, half the population will be incarcerated, and the other half will be paying ridiculously high taxes to keep the crime economy afloat.

Clearly, we need to be doing something differently, if we want prison to have any positive function at all. And one thing we can do is listen to people who know what they’re talking about, who have experience with the issue. My wife is working on a groundbreaking study of how mental illness and psychiatric treatment are related to recidivism; believe it or not, the study she’s working on asks a question that’s never really been asked before. You’d think that all the axe-waving politicians who pander for votes with the “tough-on-crime” line would actually have some facts to back up their ideas, but they don’t. It’s entirely an emotional argument, one that, put into practice, holds no water.

Read David Simon’s The Corner for a glimpse into the drug subculture that drives so much of our high rate of incarceration. It’s a real eye-opener.

End rant.