Introduction
Many systems worldwide have adopted the prison system to rehabilitate criminals, ensure public safety, and minimize recidivism. The reasons cited for the justification of the system include deterring potential criminals, establishing a structured environment, and restitution (Timler et al., 2019). However, a French philosopher and sociologist, Michael Foucault, has been critical of this system and its results (Baker & O’Farrell, 2021). In his famous book Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison (1975), the French author explores the evolution of various punishment methods. Foucault argues that the belief that prisons are effective corrective facilities is just a myth (Flores, 2021). He goes deeper to narrate the paradox of prisons, where he observes that while prisons say they are made to support the criminals, they end up producing even more dangerous criminals. Prisons, as Foucault argues, exert force and control over criminals, thus reinforcing their criminal identity and resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy of delinquency. According to Foucault, prisons perpetuate delinquency by emphasizing punishment over rehabilitation, fostering a hostile environment that promotes recidivism over reintegration and personal growth.
Overview of Prisons as Institutions of Discipline and Punishment
Prisons as Rehabilitation Centers
Prisons, as institutions of discipline and punishment, seek to maintain law and order by incarcerating people found guilty of performing a crime. Generally, prisons are characterized by strict rules, constant surveillance, and regimentation of inmates (Haggerty & Bucerius, 2020). The system seeks to convert wrongdoers’ docile bodies that conform to society’s norms and standards. This goal is achieved through various methods, including solitary confinement, physical punishment, and exerting total control over the inmates to enforce discipline. As observed by many scholars and critics, this method does not achieve its objective but instead produces more delinquents.
Foucault’s Argument of Total Control
Foucault presents a critical analysis of the prison system and argues that it is designed to exert total control over the inmates. He writes that the system functions as a disciplined society that aims to make prisoners docile by controlling all aspects of their lives (Ellis, 2021; Portschy, 2020). Such is achieved by having the prisoners follow strict routines, subjecting them to constant surveillance, and having them follow hierarchical structures. This control is known as “Panopticon,” a prison design that seeks to ensure total prison control through continuous observation of the criminals. This panopticon architectural design makes the inmates assume they are constantly observing even when nobody is observing and thus adjust their behavior accordingly (Karthaus et al., 2019). Foucault argues that the “Panopticon” challenges the traditional view that prisons are just rehabilitation institutions but reinforcement centers with broader power structures that seek to maintain discipline in society. Foucault, however, agrees that the single watchman observation strategy employed in the prisons helps the prisons achieve their primary goal of maintaining power over the prisoners, enforcing social norms, and shaping the inmates from criminal behavior.
Dehumanizing and Violent Methods in Prisons
The prison system punishes the inmates using violent and dehumanizing methods. Examples of methods employed in prison include solitary confinement, the practice of isolating prisoners from the rest of the inmates for an extended period. Solitary confinement harbors negative consequences, including psychological distress, depression, and hallucinations (Aranda-Hughes & Mears, 2023). Secondly, the prisons employ physical punishments, such as beatings, to control the prisoners and deter them from committing some acts. Beating, as Foucault argues, degrades the sense of self-worth and dignity and contributes to delinquency in prisoners. The feeling of dehumanization in the prisons is also contributed by overcrowding, strip searches, and degradation of the prisoners by the prison officers. The more the prisoners are subjected to dehumanizing and violent methods, the more they embed criminal identity in themselves, leading to fulfilling prophesy where the inmates view themselves as lawbreakers.
Why Prisons Keep Producing Delinquents According to Foucault
Disciplinary Society
Foucault’s “Disciplinary Society” framework serves as a broader context for helping people understand how prisons operate. First, Foucault argues that the primary goal of prisons is to create “docile bodies” that can conform to social norms and societal expectations. This goal and objective are achieved through crooked means such as physical exportation, constant observation, bureaucratic structures, and using isolation as a means of punishment. Foucault observes that the disciplinary society aims to manage behavior by focusing on punishment instead of rehabilitation (Arminjon & Marion-Veyron, 2021). From taking fixed meals to following timed work schedules and sleeping hours, the prisoners adapt to the daily lives of the prison institution. The regimentation that the inmates face eliminates their freedom and autonomy to act as self-individuals outside the prison’s rules and regulations. Therefore, when prisoners are released to the outside world, they find it challenging to cope and commit criminal activities.
Dehumanizing Methods
Another reason why they keep producing delinquents against their intended purpose is because they are brutal means to achieve their desired control. Studies show that most prisons have many reported and unreported brutal force acts committed by prison officers (Boateng & Hsieh, 2019; Sousa et al., 2019). Criminals can thus maintain order and adhere to the rules set for a particular time when they are in prison. According to Foucault, prison dehumanizing methods significantly contribute to the inmate’s delinquency (Aranda-Hughes et al., 2020). He says that subjecting the prisoners to brutal punishments will make them lose hope and be desperate. Consequently, this results in them feeling that they have nothing to lose and, thus, delinquent behavior. Additionally, Foucault emphasized that the prison system is heavily skewed to favor prison officers. This power dynamic could easily lead to the guards and administrators mistreating and dehumanizing the prisoners as they may view them as lesser humans.
Self-Fulfilling Prophesy of Delinquency
The self-fulfilling prophecy refers to a situation where a belief or expectation about a person or a group makes the expectation come true. In prisons, the self-fulfilling prophecy of delinquency occurs when a prisoner is labeled as a criminal by the security guards or fellow prisoners (Rennick, 2021; Dumitran, 2021). The labeling can either be verbal or implied, where the prisoners are constantly under watch because they fear how they may decide to act. This labeling can have the prisoner paranoid, angry, and hopeless and, in turn, increase their likelihood of committing criminal acts (Zajda, 2022). The self-fulfilling prophecy is particularly damaging for people who had committed minor or no crimes but were somehow incarcerated. Once these individuals are labeled delinquents and subjected to harsh punishments, they could lose their cool and ability to live lawfully.
Social Control and Inequality
According to Foucault, social control and inequality are significant contributors to prisoners’ delinquency when they return to their communities. Foucault observes that prisons are full of people of low social class, including people of color, low-income individuals, and people with mental health problems (Arminjon & Marion-Veyron, 2021). This group is disproportionately represented in prisons and could act as a social identity of associating a particular population segment with a crime. Furthermore, Foucault argues that prisons are part of a broader system that operates through schools, hospitals, and government agencies. These systems, the French philosopher argued, seek to promote society’s norms and values and punish those who do not conform (Garrett, 2019). People of low socioeconomic class may face barriers to success and social mobility, resulting in them being criminalized.
People in prison and out are likely to get out poor and thus be marginalized. Further, more members of society may disassociate themselves from the former prisoners making them face anxiety and depression disorders. Society could also act as a catalyst for the delinquency of these people by labeling them criminals. Social control and inequality are also demonstrated through security guards and officers who dehumanize and mistreat the prisoners. As a result, the prisoners retaliate towards the officers and thus encourage delinquent behavior.
Failure to Address the Root Cause
Foucault explains that prisons’ failure to address the root causes of delinquency among criminals is a significant reason prisons keep producing delinquents despite their rehabilitative objective. The French author argued that prisons are control-oriented and punitive, thus unable to address the root causes of delinquency among the prisoners (Arminjon & Marion-Veyron, 2021). The prison system, according to Foucault, views crime as an individual problem rather than a problem faced and caused by society as a whole. Therefore, instead of focusing on the leading causes of the problem, such as poverty, food insecurity, inequality, and social marginalization, the prisons focus on controlling the individual offenders by punishing them. This form of individual punishment can particularly damage people who have experienced trauma or mental issues. Foucault points out that the prison system, rather than providing these individuals with the necessary support and guidance, subjects them to harsh punishments, exacerbating the problem.
Alternative Approaches to Rehabilitation and Criminal Justice
Restorative Justice and Community-Based Programs
For Foucault, alternative measures such as restorative justice and community-based programs offer an alternative to rehabilitation and social justice. Restorative justice involves building harmony between the offender and the offended (Sayers, 2020). Restorative justice is built on the premise that crime hurts both the offender and the victim; thus, the best way of dealing with it is to prevent the crime before it happens (Vooren et al., 2022; Winslade, 2019; Johnson, 2020). This method involves a meeting between the offender and the victim and having them discuss the issues in the presence of a third party, such as the community members. In restorative justice methods, various compensation methods include restitution, community service, or other compensative packages (de Oliverira Morsh, 2019). On the other hand, community-based programs seek to eliminate delinquent behavior among criminals by providing them with the resources needed for success (Baker et al., 2022). Community-based services seek to provide individuals with resources they may need for work and those that will help them have an income source (Thomas et al., 2022). Foucault argues that restorative justice and community-based programs offer a root-cause solution and could help reduce crime and prevent delinquency.
Prioritizing Rehabilitation and Reintegration
Foucault advocates for rehabilitation and reintegration as an alternative to the disadvantageous traditional rehabilitation and criminal justice approaches. This method seeks to provide individuals with the resources needed to overcome socioeconomic pressures contributing to delinquent behavior (Moran et al., 2019). Foucault proved that prisons view crime as an individual problem rather than a systematic one. He suggests that adopting rehabilitation and reintegration techniques could help solve these problems since they recognize an issue as systematic and identifies the cause of delinquency, providing individuals with the necessary resources to overcome it. Rehabilitation and reintegration help individuals build social networks and skills that could help the delinquents get employment, and resources will prevent them from performing such crimes in the future.
Benefits of Alternative Approaches
There are numerous benefits of alternative approaches to rehabilitation and the criminal justice approach, such as the proposed restorative justice, community-based systems, rehabilitation, and reintegration. Studies have shown that the restorative justice system fosters healing and reconciliation by reducing recidivism, promoting accountability, and reducing harm (Sayers, 2020; Winslade, 2019). Community-based programs enhance an individual’s network and social connections, opening them up to opportunities and thus reducing social inequality (Baker et al., 2022). Conversely, rehabilitation reduces the chances of criminal behavior by promoting personal growth and behavioral change. Finally, reintegration promotes support and inclusion by offering the previous offenders the resources and opportunities to reintegrate into society.
Conclusion
Prisons perpetuate delinquency since they emphasize punishment over rehabilitation, encouraging a hostile environment that does not promote personal growth. The system promotes delinquency by using dehumanizing methods such as punishments and process institutionalization, failing to rehabilitate the wrongdoers. The system also seeks to create “docile bodies” that conform to social norms and societal expectations rather than making individuals productive and autonomous. The social inequality and dehumanizing methods used in the prisons result in the workers having a socially fulfilling prophecy where they view themselves as criminals and thus resist change. As Foucault argued, alternative methods to criminal justice, such as restorative justice, community-based systems, rehabilitation, and reintegration, yield better results.
References
Aranda-Hughes, V., & Mears, D. P. (2023). Solitary Confinement and Prison Personnel: Emotional numbing as a response to work in extended restrictive housing. Incarceration, 4, 263266632311603. Web.
Aranda-Hughes, V., Mears, D. P., Pesta, G. B., & Brown, J. M. (2020). The contemporary salience of deprivation theory: Prison personnel perceptions of inmates and the pains of solitary confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 67(3), 399–430. Web.
Arminjon, M., & Marion-Veyron, R. (2021). Coronavirus biopolitics: The paradox of France’s foucauldian heritage. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 43, 1-5. Web.
Baker, B., & O’Farrell, C. (2021). Curriculum Influences: William James and Michel Foucault. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Web.
Baker, D., Fisher, K., Hamilton, M., Rice, S., & Purcell, R. (2022). Providing a pathway to community-based psychosocial or mental health support services for young people following initial encounters with police: A scoping review. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 34(4), 360-382. Web.
Boateng, F. D., & Hsieh, M.-L. (2019). Explaining job satisfaction and commitment among prison officers: The role of organizational justice. The Prison Journal, 99(2), 172–193. Web.
de Oliverira Morsh, B. (2019). Retribution vs. restoration: Tendencies of the criminal justice system [Master’s thesis, Dominican University of California]. Dominican Scholar. Web.
Dumitran, C. (2021). Considerations on young prisoners–between social reintegration and recidivism. LESIJ-Lex ET Scientia International Journal, 28(2), 206–212. Web.
Garrett, P. M. (2019). The politics of Michel Foucault. In S. Webb (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Social Work (pp. 137–147). Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2021). Prisons as porous institutions. Theory and Society, 50(2), 175–199. Web.
Flores, J. (2021). Fromm, Foucault, Garland, and prison education. Curriculum Perspectives, 41(2), 231–236. Web.
Karthaus, R., Block, L., & Hu, A. (2019). Redesigning prison: The architecture and ethics of rehabilitation. The Journal of Architecture, 24(2), 193–222. Web.
Johnstone, G. (2020). The restorative justice movement: Questioning the rationale of contemporary criminal justice. In F. Focquaert, E. Shaw, & B. N. Waller (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the philosophy and science of punishment (pp. 75–86). Routledge. Web.
Moran, D., Turner, J., & Arnold, H. (2019). Soldiering on? The prison‐military complex and ex‐military personnel as prison officers: transition, rehabilitation and prison reform. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 58(2), 220–239. Web.
Portschy, J. (2020). Times of power, knowledge and critique in the work of Foucault. Time & Society, 29(2), 392–419. Web.
Rennick, S. (2021). Self-fulfilling prophecies. Philosophies, 6(3), 78. Web.
Sousa, M., Gonçalves, R. A., Cruz, A. R., & de Castro Rodrigues, A. (2019). Prison officers’ attitudes towards self-harm in prisoners. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 66, 101490. Web.
Sayers, N. (2020). The relationship between restorative justice and prison abolition. Neo-Colonial Injustice and the Mass Imprisonment of Indigenous Women, pp. 35–52. Web.
Thomas, E. G., Spittal, M. J., Taxman, F. S., Puljević, C., Heffernan, E. B., & Kinner, S. A. (2022). Association between contact with mental health and substance use services and reincarceration after release from prison. PLOS ONE, 17(9), e0272870. Web.
Timler, K., Brown, H., & Varcoe, C. (2019). Growing connection beyond prison walls: How a prison garden fosters rehabilitation and healing for incarcerated men. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58(5), 444–463. Web.
Vooren, M., Rud, I., Cornelisz, I., Van Klaveren, C., Groot, W., & Maassen van den Brink, H. (2022). The effects of a restorative justice programme (Halt) on educational outcomes and recidivism of young people. Journal of Experimental Criminology. Web.
Zajda, J. (2022). Academic achievement discrimination and self-fulfilling prophecy in schools. Globalization, Comparative Education and Policy Research, pp. 59–74. Web.