The modern prison system was designed in the United States in the early 19th Century. It was meant as a way to reform the trouble makers. These were modeled after the debtor prisons that could be found across Europe. America, of course, has never believed in the idea of a debtor prison. Likewise it wasn't long before we didn't believe in those convicted of crimes being whipped, branded, or publicly humiliated. Rather, the legislators thought that reform could happen in prison.
In modern criminal law there are three ideas for the purpose of prisons: deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. All of these purposes have their flaws, but I believe the first two are most flawed, while rehabilitation is a worthy goal in most circumstances.
As Holt points out there are many people who believe that incarceration in America is out of hand. Most of it has been caused by state and federal lawmakers who want to make the general public happy by appearing "tough on crime."
In the late 70's, as more and more Americans were being crowded into lockup, states went on a prison-building spree. The inmate census doubled, then doubled again and again. Today, this nation keeps more than two million people behind bars -- compared with only 200,000 three decades ago.
Not only are the prisons filling up but the amount of money it takes to house this many inmates is staggering. Many of these people are in prison for minor offenses such as drug use or prostitution.
The problem has become the mandatory minimum sentences. There are many people who argue that the prison system should be scaled back.
Recently, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy warned of "moral blindness" in the criminal justice system, and the American Bar Association has just issued a report calling for an end to mandatory minimum sentences and a renewed emphasis on rehabilitation (which recent studies have shown to be effective, despite the scoffing of many conservatives)
Studies or not, it is doubtful that legislatures will voluntarily push back mandatory sentences. This is the problem with deterrence. It seems to be working.
Deterrence is only an illusion that does not actually happen. It is true that "for a century and half after the creation of prisons, crime dropped steadily across Western nations." However, crime rose again in the 60s across most of the world. In the past decade there has been a falling crime rate again. Deterrence doesn't explain this, nor does it explain the fact that countries and states that didn't expand prisons still experienced the same drops in crime.
Another rationale for prisons (and the death penalty) has long been retribution. This is the most troubling of the reasons for me. Retribution literally means "paying back." It is unclear to me how "the suffering inflicted on an offender compensates for his crime." Is vindictive satisfaction really justice? I don't think so for a couple reasons. First, it isn't clear that there is really any psychological relief for the victims when someone is incarcerated or put on death row. More importantly, as Holt states:
There is increasing evidence that the most violent criminals are often driven by forces beyond their control...Clearly, society needs to protect itself from these people. But does it need to punish them?
While I wouldn't compare the idea of incarceration with child labor or torture, I do think it needs fixed. Too much of our money is spent on over-crowded prisons. Mandatory minimums are overstepping legislation that has caused far more harm than good.
The idea of prisons needs to change to that of rehabilitation. This has worked in other countries like Finland. The prisons in Finland were modeled after the harsh Soviet Union prison system. Then they changed the entire philosophy of prisons and made them much more lenient. They understand that the punishment is a loss of freedom not being treated like shit by guards, not being herded into concrete rooms with threadbare mattresses, and certainly not being locked away for years because you were smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Today, Finland imprisons the smallest fraction of its population of any European country (52 prisoners per 100,000 people, compared with 702 in the United States). Yet its crime rate, far from exploding, has remained at a low level.
My hope is that one day the US Prison system will receive a much needed makeover. While it seems that this will require a brave politician to start the change, one only needs reminded that such a politician has lived. Winston Churchill observed, "Treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country."
It's time for the American penal institution to act a little more civilized. The change needs to start with public demands. Civility requires it.
