Introduction
Incarceration as a form of punishment has been the central philosophy in the American justice system. However, opportunities abound to make rehabilitation an integral part of the penal system to ensure that inmate re-entry into society is effective and recidivism avoided. The issue whether the concept of incarceration in the American criminal justice system should remain punitive in nature or not is debatable. Philosophical underpinnings of JS Mill’s Utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative might be useful in resolving the conceptual problem of punishment. Contrary to the belief that incarceration is a deterrent, criminal activities increased despite the swelling of prison population across the United States.
Harary in Incarceration as a Modality of Punishment considered incarceration as a cornerstone in the American criminal justice system. It is the most common form of punishment for offenders of society. Similarly, in the UK, it is the central form of punishment, putting more emphasis on corrections rather than rehabilitation (“Prison Rehabilitation”). In the modern criminal justice system, one of the main goals of the penal system is the rehabilitation of inmates. This was primarily aimed at preventing recidivist behavior among those who have served their time and re-integrated into society.
In the American criminal justice system, there are four goals of punishment. These include: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation (Harary). In the past two or three decades, the criminal justice system utilized incarceration as a mode of punishment aimed at preventing future crimes and as a form of social control (Harary). Incarceration became the more dominant form of punishment and preventive measures against criminality as seen in three instances. First, the existence of a “three strikes law” that metes out life sentences to repeat offenders. Second, the decreasing age of juveniles that could be tried in adult courts. Finally, sentencing guidelines allow the increase in penalties particularly for repeat offenders (Harary).
Vogel in Capitalism and Incarceration Revisited tracked the upward trend of incarceration beginning from the Vietnam War era. By December 31, 2001, there are close to two million prisoners confined in various penal facilities all over the country for various offenses (40). Operating a prison system is expensive. Between 1982 and 1997, expenditure on maintenance of corrections increases 381 percent (43). The current policies in the American penal system were primarily influenced by lessons learned in the prison uprisings in the 60s and 70s. Two important lessons for the penal system include a politically unified inmate population was a threat to the American penal system and the use of arms against unarmed inmates resulted in political and legal backlash (47-48).
McRobert in Detention – Last Resort or Just Another Step in the Rehabilitation Process argued that rehabilitation process should be integral to custody or incarceration. Among juvenile offenders, being under custody meant their rehabilitation comes from a period of incarceration. Appropriate rehabilitative programs meant to improve or correct deficits should be implemented. The stigma of being imprisoned for some offense should now progress towards the idea that the sentencing option is an opportunity and a step in the rehabilitative process (5).
Philosophical Approaches to Punishment
The basic premise of Utilitarian theory lies on the achievement of happiness in society. Any action should create a balance between happiness and unhappiness. In the view of Utilitarians, if the application of punishment is necessary to achieve that balance then the application of capital punishment may carry the same precept. “From the utilitarian perspective, then, capital punishment is justified if it (1) prevents the criminal from repeating his crime; or (2) deters crime by discouraging would-be offenders.” (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarian Theory includes the elements of justice. According to Mill, there are two important elements of justice. “They are: punishment, and the notion that someone’s rights were violated.” (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (b)) Punishment derives its principle on the concept of vengeance and social sympathy. For punishment to have it legitimate purpose, it must have a social concurrence. Mill’s second proposition is that “if justice were as foundational as nonconsequentialists contend, then justice would not be as ambiguous as it is.” (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (b)).
German Philosopher Immanuel Kant, however, emphasized that the right to punish a wrongdoer belongs to the sovereign or state. The Head of the State cannot be punished because of the supreme power vested in the State to apply punishment to its subjects. However, that mandate is revocable if the Head of State is found guilty of crimes. Kant further stated that: Judicial or juridical punishment (poena forensis) is to be distinguished from natural punishment (poena naturalis), in which crime as vice punishes itself, and does not as such come within the cognizance of the legislator. Juridical punishment can never be administered merely as a means for promoting another good either with regard to the criminal himself or to civil society, but must in all cases be imposed only because the individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a crime (Kant).
For Kant, meting punishment is not simply applying the full force of law on the guilty. There are requisites that should be followed according to Kantian philosophy. A just punishment must also conform both to the categorical imperative (never treat anyone merely as a means) and to the principle of “equality.” In essence, everyone (victim and victimizer) should be made equal in suffering. A balance between moral turpitude and suffering must be restored. This to Kant is in some sense what is deserved. (Abel and Marsh 62).
In the retributive argument, the degree of punishment must equal or approximate the degree of crime committed so that the punishment is just. Fundamentally, the retributive argument believes that the criminal deserves the punishment meted out to him. There are two types of retributive justice: “lex talionis retribution involves punishment in kind and is commonly expressed in the expression “an eye for an eye.” [and], lex salica retribution involves punishment through compensation, and the harm inflicted can be repaired by payment or atonement.” (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Capital punishment is often associated with the “lex talionis” retribution and dates back to as early as the Hammurabi regime (Kent 6).
Immanuel Kant offered an alternative solution to the retributive problem of vengeance. “[C]apital punishment is based on the idea that every person is a valuable and worthy of respect because of their ability to make rational and free choices. The murder, too, is worthy of respect; we, thus, show him respect by treating him the same way he declares that people are to be treated.” (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) But one flaw to Kant’s suggestion was not all perpetrators are sane enough to realize the implications of their criminal acts.
Incarceration as a Rehabilitation Process
With the increasing prison population and yet no abatement in the increase of criminal activities, many questioned the effectiveness of prisons as a form of social control. However, Logan and Gaes in Meta-analysis and the Rehabilitation of Punishment observed that by defining the mission of prisons as both punishment and rehabilitation, it lends more confusion to both inside and outside the walls of prison. The authors are critical of the coupling of the terms punishment and rehabilitation because they convey the message of rights without responsibility to prisoners. Outside the walls of prisons, the terms also send mixed messages to the public. On one hand, punishment emphasizes criminal behavior as wrong and unacceptable while rehabilitation makes it appear that some individuals require adjustments rather than being responsible or accountable for their acts (10). The authors suggested that for both missions to succeed, punishment and rehabilitation must be treated separately.
Arguments for and against incarceration had been mixed. For example, in the juvenile justice system, Nagin et al found in their cost benefit analysis of rehabilitating youthful offenders that it would cost more to incarcerate a youth offender than putting them into rehabilitation programs. In addition, their study also found that the American public is more willing to pay for rehabilitation programs that detaining the juvenile offender for a longer period (643). While the public was quite concerned about recent violent crimes committed by youth offenders, they were willing to support effective rehabilitation programs than imposing additional punishments. The punitive justice policies may not gain sufficient support because the “high cost of punitive sentencing guidelines has become a consideration in the public debate—long sentences translate into more prison space, more staff, and generally higher operating costs.” (p.646) In the current juvenile court systems, punishment is more favored than rehabilitation. In most cases, a youth offender who is violent and awaiting trial in an adult court is initially placed in the juvenile court system. This has put undue stress on the American legal system (Jenson, Potter & Howard 57).]
Inmate work programs contribute considerably in preparing jail and prison inmates for life outside an institution by teaching them good work habits and interpersonal skills. Work programs throw in to inmates’ sense of achievement and self-esteem and often provide an opportunity to learn new skills. Inmate work programs also benefit correctional institutions and the public by providing needed services at low cost. Operational work programs can offer inmates an alternative to idleness and in so doing contribute to improved inmate morale.
Nearly all prison classification systems have evolved over the last two decades from very subjective means of classifying inmates to fairly objective systems. This progress toward objectivity has occurred mainly to avoid rampant discretion and to incorporate into classification instruments the philosophical and policy preferences significant to the agency. (Supermax Prisons).
The majority of jails use a single classification system for male and female inmates. Such gender-neutral classifications primarily focus on security risk and commonly use similar classification factors for both male and female inmates. One and the same needs assessment forms are typically used with no modification for female inmates. In local jails, the use of a single classification system may be more practical because of the short length of stay and consequent difficulty of treating long-term social needs.
Most jails adopt a single gender-neutral system without conducting the necessary research to examine its soundness on female samples. Existing gender-neutral systems appear to have a tendency to over classify women and to inadequately assess, and perhaps underestimate, female inmates’ needs. The provision of resources to female inmates such as housing, programs, and visitation often appears inadequate in male dominated jails. (Women in Jail).
Incarceration in the 21st Century
The Federal Bureau of Prisons introduced Intensive Confinement Center (ICC) meant to “to change offenders’ behavior and ultimately reduce their involvement in criminal activity without compromising public safety.” (Klein-Saffran 1-2) Without entirely abandoning the original concept of punishment but embracing the need to make programs integral to the rehabilitation process agenda of contemporary prison systems, the program is voluntary and inmates successfully completing the program are given the opportunity to serve the remainder of their sentence in a community-based setting (3). The ICC facility is described as
…purposely spartan and restrictive. In a highly structured environment, the ICC offers a specialized program consisting of a daily regimen of physical training, labor-intensive work assignments 6 days per week, education and vocational training, substance abuse treatment, and life skills programs conducive to a successful reintegration into mainstream community life (3).
The underlying objectives of the program include “[helping] offenders develop responsible decision-making, self-direction, and a positive self-image, and obtain and keep a job.” (3) Eligibility into the program requires the following requisites:
- Be serving a sentence of 12 to 30 months;
- Be serving a first incarceration sentence or have a minor history of prior incarcerations (e.g., for personal drug use or minor property offenses);
- Pose a minimum security risk;
- Lack medical restrictions; and
- Volunteer for participation in the program (4).
Conclusion
Incarceration as a form of punishment should be made clear to the public. Although many studies revealed the shortcomings of imprisonment as a form of social control, it nevertheless serves as an important venue or opportunity to correct deviant behavior. The coupling of the terms of punishment and rehabilitation must be reconsidered. Clear delineation between the two terms must be established to avoid confusion. Making rehabilitation as integral to the process of corrections ensures that inmate re-entry into society is effective and the probability of recidivism is minimized.
Works Cited
Abel, C.F. and F.H. Marsh, Punishment and Restitution: A Restitutionary Approach to Crime and the Criminal. Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 1984.
Harary, Charles J., “Incarceration as a Modality of Punishment,” (2008), Web.
Jenson, J.M., Potter, C.C. & Howard, M.O., American Juvenile Justice: Recent Trends and Issues and Youth Offending. Social Policy and Administration, 35(1)(2001), 48-68.
Kant, Immanuel, “The Science of Right – Part 5, Section 1,” 2008. Web.
Kent, C.F. Israel’s Laws and Legal Precedents: From the Days of Moses to the Closing of the Legal Canon. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1907.
Logan, Charles H. and Gaes, Gerald. G., Meta-Analysis and the Rehabilitation of Punishment. Justice Quarterly, 10(2)(1993). Web.
McRobert, Chris, “Detention – Last Resort or Just Another Step in the Rehabilitation Process,” 2008. Web.
Nagin, D.S. et al, Public Preferences For Rehabilitation Versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Evidence From a Contingent Valuation Survey. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(4)(2006), 627-652.
“Prison Rehabilitation,” (2008). Web.
Klein-Saffran, Jody, “Chapter 6: Bureau of Prisons: Expanding Intermediate Sanctions Through Intensive Confinement Centers,”2008. Web.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Capital Punishment,” 2008. Web.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (b), “Utilitarianism” 2008. Web.
Vogel, Richard D., Capitalism and Incarceration Revisited. Monthly Review, 55(4)(Sep 2003), 38-55.
Women in Jail: Classification Issues. 2008. Web.