Introduction
While not apparent to outside observers, the cultural practice of imprisonment (CPI) reflects the value a particular society places on its incarcerated population. This paper explores American culture in relation to the penal system and its use of punitive measures. The contemporary United States (US) culture focuses on mass incarceration, practicing dehumanizing and punishment-oriented approaches (Ahalt et al., 2020).
In my opinion, the nation should abolish the manner in which it treats people in prison, which can be done by embracing a more effective and sound custom. For instance, countries such as Norway, Germany, and Finland have distinct penal systems. The US should change its degrading CPI by adopting a more humane way of such a state as Norway.
Background
To explain why the US should modify its CPI, one should compare it with those of other nations. As noted above, American culture emphasizes mass confinement, which has led to the country having the highest incarceration rate (IR) in the world. For example, while the US has an IR of over 600 individuals per 100,000 people, IRs in Germany, Norway, and Finland are below 100 per 100,000 people (Western, 2021). Increasing overcrowding in prisons in the US is associated with the facilities practicing dehumanization (Ahalt et al., 2020). For instance, Pennsylvania is known for placing individuals with severe mental conditions in solitary confinement, which negatively impacts one’s mental health (Western, 2021).
In comparison, Norway, for example, has developed a correctional culture that practices humanity and rehabilitation, protecting the inmates’ health (Ahalt et al., 2020). Notably, Norway also has a relatively low reoffending rate of 20%, indicating the usefulness of its approach (Dugdale et al., 2021). Therefore, the US needs to reform its CPI in line with Norway’s practice, as it is more humane and appears to be effective at preventing further crimes.
The US
CPI in the US should decline. Throughout history, CPI in the country has fluctuated several times depending on what citizens valued. For example, in the early 19th century, people believed that prisons were meant to correct those convicted of crimes with a focus on separation, obedience, and labor (Crewe & Ievins, 2020). By the Progressive period, employment and education were at the center of attention, and correctional institutions began resembling factories and schools. Nonetheless, the penal practice often reflected the social organization of slavery (Western, 2021).
The discussion of more benevolent approaches dates to after World War II, yet rehabilitation was met with skepticism and became essentially taboo around the 1970s. In the XXI century, CPI shifted toward mass incarceration, with incapacitation and deterrence becoming the norms (Ahalt et al., 2020; Western, 2021). Such a practice has led to the occurrence of violence, sexual assault, and suicide in prisons (Ahalt et al., 2020). Accordingly, the CPI in the US needs to be modified, as its history demonstrates that those in prison have been treated as undeserving of a chance to change for the better.
Norway
The US should adopt Norway’s CPI since it is more humane. For instance, among the norms of the country’s CPI is that Norwegian prison officers are trained to facilitate the inmates’ improvement through incentives, motivational interviewing, and mentorship (Ahalt et al., 2020). Moreover, people in correctional institutions are treated similarly to regular citizens. For example, prisoners in Norway receive healthcare comparable in quality to that provided to the general population (Dugdale et al., 2021).
Notably, while dehumanization can be considered taboo in the nation, it would be misleading to state that CPI in Norway does not discipline law offenders for their crimes. Norway’s correctional facilities are meant to transform rather than punish (Ahalt et al., 2020). Such an aspect is common to many European prisons, which promote normalization and re-socialization and less often focus on solitary confinement and high levels of security, which are widespread in the US. Moreover, Norwegian CPI positively affects health, employment, and earnings after release (Ahalt et al., 2020). Consequently, the US should embrace Norway’s CPI, as it demonstrates that Norwegian society understands the importance of allowing people to change and recognizes its benefits.
Community Bond
CPI can foster community bonds by conveying value to people. As mentioned earlier, the concentration of the US CPI on mass confinement has led to overcrowding, which negatively affects inmates through dehumanization and enhanced punishment (Ahalt et al., 2020; Western, 2021). However, overpopulation in prisons may also impair post-incarceration adjustment and threaten public safety (Western, 2021).
Accordingly, American culture regarding the penal system degrades people and hinders their chances of re-entering the community. In comparison, Norway’s CPI focuses on rehabilitation, which signals not only one’s ability to change but also society’s commitment to compassion (Western, 2021). As a result, Norwegian culture concerning incarceration suggests that those in prison should and can transform to return as practical members of the public. Therefore, the US should revise its CPI to strengthen community bonds by transmitting humane values.
Representation
CPI reflects the culture that practices it, reflecting the people’s priorities. CPI of the US may demonstrate that the nation does not regard individuals in prison due to the dehumanization of those incarcerated. Moreover, one can assume that American culture approves of imprisoning various individuals, as the world is aware that the country has the highest incarceration rate (Ahalt et al., 2020; Western, 2021). On the other hand, Norway’s focus on rehabilitation in its CPI may announce to outsiders that its community is civilized and believes in redemption (Western, 2021). Consequently, the US should modify its CPI since it can represent the country’s culture regarding incarceration as one that values rather than degrades people.
Conclusion
To summarize, the US should alter its dehumanizing cultural practice of imprisonment by embracing a more compassionate way of Norway. CPI illustrates what is valued by society, and the current CPI of the US demonstrates that American culture lets incarcerated individuals be dehumanized due to not valuing them. The nation’s CPI indicates that people have become accustomed to viewing those in prison as unable to change. Nonetheless, the CPI of a country such as Norway suggests that persons in correctional facilities should be treated compassionately to prevent reoffending and facilitate their further adjustment in society. Therefore, the US needs a new CPI that would help incarcerated individuals better themselves and, in turn, positively affect the country’s culture.
Evaluation of Sources
The sources used in the present paper can be evaluated as satisfactory based on several factors. First, each of the three articles is a scholarly report issued by a reputable journal, indicating their quality and credibility. Second, the reports were published within the last five years, suggesting that they have recent rather than outdated information. Third, the authors appear to have substantial credentials, as they are affiliated with diverse educational institutions. Fourth, the articles appear reliable, as each discussion is supported by evidence. Consequently, the three sources can be considered acceptable.
References
Ahalt, C., Haney, C., Ekhaugen, K., & Williams, B. (2020). Role of a US–Norway exchange in placing health and well-being at the center of US prison reform. American Journal of Public Health, 110(S1), S27-S29.
Crewe, B., & Ievins, A. (2020). The prison as a reinventive institution. Theoretical criminology, 24(4), 568-589.
Dugdale, W., Lahtinen, P., Kajamaa, A., & Hean, S. (2021). Organizational dynamics of interprofessional practice in the Norwegian prison system. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 36(3), 340-349.
Western, B. (2021). Inside the box: Safety, health, and isolation in prison. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 35(4), 97-122.