Abstract
The government’s ultimate role is to set laws and enforce them through the justice system, with punishment serving as both a consequence for illegal actions and a prevention measure. From a utilitarian perspective, punishment is justified through the result of it, which is the prevention of future crimes. On the other hand, the deontologists believe that the mere fact of committing a crime serves as a justification for punitive action. Regardless of an ethical framework, the United States’ incarceration rates are record-high, raising a question of the effectiveness of the approach used by the state’s justice system to prevent crimes and punish for illegal actions. This paper argues that the example of the United States proves that punishment in incarceration for minor offenses has no ethical justification. Instead, the government should enforce other types of punishments.
Introduction
One of the criminal justice system’s core tasks is to catch individuals responsible for crimes and isolate them, with the premise that punishment can lead to a change in one’s behavior or protect society from individuals accountable for crimes. The United States, unlike other Western countries, incarcerates a disproportionately large number of people if compared to the size of its population. Moreover, incarceration is a favored method of punishment in the state, unlike other means of correction, and some social groups are disproportionately incarcerated. These factors prompt one to question this form of punishment and its widespread use. This paper will review the evidence and ethical implications of the punishment and correction relationship in the United States and examine the ethics of incarceration in relation to the alternative methods of punishment.
Ethics of Punishment Through Incarceration
Punishment is an inseparable element of legislation outlining the legal consequences of unlawful actions. According to Montez and Pierce (2019), “a fundamental role of government is to punish and rehabilitate offenders” (p. 217). An ethical justification of punishment is its consequence — the prevention of future crimes, following the utilitarian approach. Alternatively, deontologists believe that a crime’s commitment is a factor that is sufficient for justifying the punishment for it (Bagaric, 2020). However, governments often use private organizations’ services to fulfill this obligation, which poses some moral dilemmas regarding the efficacy of the corrective efforts and the benefit that the private organizations receive. Additionally, in the United States, the number of incarcerated individuals per 100,000 citizens is 689, higher than in any other Western state (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020, para. 5). This raises the question of the efficiency of this punishment method and the ethics of the current mass incarceration system.
The basis of the relationship between crime and punishment is a social contract, a violation of which leads to imprisonment or another form of punishment. The most significant ethical issue is the level of power that correction officers and people working in the institutions aimed at condoning criminals have over the lives of the contained (Abdolreza & Zahra, 2020). Mainly, incarceration places an individual in a vulnerable position. They are separated from society, their families, and friends and put in an isolated place for a period of their sentencing. The people managing the incarceration facilities have immense power over the convicts. From the perspective of utilitarian ethics, one has to look at the consequences of punishment within the current incarceration system to determine if the system is justifiable (Abdolreza & Zahra, 2020). While the deontological perspective provides a clear answer, since any crime requires a punishment, a utilitarian approach allows one to look at the consequences.
Despite the deontological view on punishment, many individuals are incarcerated before their conviction. According to Sawyer and Wagner (2020), currently, over two million people are detained across the United States. Moreover, approximately 75% of people that are now in jails have not been convicted yet, which is an issue of local bail practices. As a result, people whose guilt is yet to be proven, and they remain incarcerated. From a utilitarian perspective, the consequence of this is the prevention of potential criminals escaping justice. On the other hand, this high percentage suggests that many people not guilty of crimes are held in prisons as well, with the consequences of these actions being: inability to work and communicate with friends and family, stress, and social stigma from the mere fact that a person has been imprisoned.
A person who committed a minor crime and was sentenced to incarceration will have difficulty finding a job and reintegrating into society. Apart from apparent problems, such as job screenings during which a potential employer will find out about the applicant’s criminal record, there are issues connected to the isolation itself. During incarceration, an individual is derived from primary human activities. In most cases, they do not work, which means that they lose out on an opportunity to gain work experience. On the one hand, the county and the society recognize the vulnerable position that the prisoners are put in after their sentencing. On the other hand, “prisoners are still susceptible to mistreatment and abuse” (Weil, 2019, p. 112). For example, in the United States, prisoner’ labor is used to this day to fight wildfires, which is a labor-intensive and dangerous task. The question of whether these efforts aim to correct the behavior of individuals or if this is merely a way of using a vulnerable social group arises.
Moreover, the fairness of the existing system is questionable since some groups are incarcerated more often than others. Meyer et al. (2017) argue that sexual minorities are more often imprisoned in the United States. One issue is that a large number of these individuals experienced abuse as children, which points out another system-wide problem in the crime and punishment duo. Moroever, Meyer et al. (2017) state that representatives of sexual minorities are more likely to experience sexual abuse while incarcerated or be solitary confined. This research points out the consequences of incarceration, such as abuse and mistreatment, which are motivated by unethical implications. From an ethical perspective, such treatment and the disproportion in the conviction rates between different groups should prompt officials to reconsider the causes of crimes and the system’s appropriateness for addressing a change in behavior of people who committed minor offenses to ensure that they can return to living in a society.
The proportion of white and black inmates in the prisons also points out the inconsistencies of the justice system with the moral purpose of punishment. According to Hawes (2017), black inmates comprise 37% of the imprisoned, while the population of African-Americans in the states is only 13% of the total number of citizens. The statistics account for age and other social factors that may impact the likelihood of incarceration. Hawes (2017), Brown (2016), and Campbell and Vogel (2019) argue that one’s social capital affects the potential of being incarcerated, and therefore, the ethics of this type of punishment can be questioned. Since the justice system does not treat all individuals equally, the anticipated effect of prevention due to people’s fear of being punished is mitigated for some groups making the utilitarian perspective less valid. Aharoni et al. (2019) found that regardless of an ideology that people have, such as liberal deontological or consequentialist stances, the disclosure of costs associated with punishments decreased the willingness of individuals to impose these punishments. The public unawareness of the insufficiency that characterizes the current justice system is a contributing factor to an ineffective and questionable, from a perspective of ethics, approach to crime, and punishment in the United States.
The utilitarian approach justifies any punishment if it reaches the goal of protecting society and imposing consequences for the unlawful actions of the punished individual. Arguably, since the result of the sentence is the primary justification for utilitarianism, the government should seek to find methods that will both prevent crimes and help convicts lead a life in which they do not engage in illegal activities. In most states, the justice system is a mix of utilitarian and retributive ethical perspectives on crimes and punishment, meaning that the goal is to isolate a criminal and enable their rehabilitation (Bagaric, 2020). Moreover, Jeremy Bentham believed that general deterrence, which is the fear installed in the general public to be incarcerated, is a sound justification of punishment.
The ethics of care does not support punishments that do not help convicts become better or do not contribute to the victim’s healing. This is another ethical framework, the basis of which is the provision of the best outcome. However, people who were jailed are likely to commit a crime and be incarcerated again within a year after their release (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020). This is linked to poverty and other struggles that these individuals face, leading to one in four released prisoners committing a crime again. Arguably, the statistics prove that from an ethical perspective, the punishment for the crimes is not effective enough, and other perspectives should be integrated into the existing justice system. Due to the fact that the current system of punishment is ineffective and causes harm to people, especially those who committed minor offenses, Tonry (2018) argues that a “new conception of justice in punishment is needed that is premised on respect for offenders’ human dignity” (p. 2). This new system should incorporate utilitarian, retributive values combined with a respect for human dignity. In that case, the justice system will address one of the core issues of crimes, the behaviors shaped by the environment, personal characteristics, economic circumstances, and other factors, making it ethically correct.
Conclusions
In summary, there is an issue of the ethical perspective of the crimes in punishment, especially in the United States, where the incarceration rates are incredibly high. Individuals are punished even for minor offenses, and therefore, they are deprived of many opportunities and social interactions, which may cause them to have troubles upon their reintegration into society. The United States justice system has over conviction and bail practices that allow the officials to hold people in prisons even before they are convicted of crimes. Considering the many negative consequences of such actions, the current system is unethical since the results of such actions are mostly negative, and innocent people or those who committed minor crimes suffer significantly from social stigma and isolation.
References
Abdolreza, J., & Zahra, F. (2020). A survey of utilitarian philosophers’ reading on capital punishment deterrence. MAJLIS & RAHBORD, 26(100), 215-241.
Aharoni, E., Kleider‐Offutt, H.M. & Brosnan, S.F. (2020). The price of justice: Cost neglect increases criminal punishment recommendations.Legal Criminal Psychology, 25, 47-61. Web.
Bagaric, M. (2020). The contours of utilitarian theory of punishment in light of contemporary empirical knowledge about the attainment of traditional sentencing objectives. In F. Focquaert, E. Shaw, & B. N. Waller (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the philosophy and science of punishment (pp. 20-33). Routledge.
Brown, E. K. (2016). Toward refining the criminology of mass incarceration: Group-based trajectories of U.S. states, 1977–2010.Criminal Justice Review, 10-20. Web.
Campbell, M. C., & Vogel, M. (2019). The demographic divide: Population dynamics, race and the rise of mass incarceration in the United States.Punishment & Society, 21(1), 47–69. Web.
Hawes, D. P. (2017). Social capital, racial context, and incarcerations in the American States.State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 17(4), 393–417. Web.
Meyer, I. H., Flores, A. R., Stemple, L., Romero, A. P., Wilson, B., & Herman, J. L. (2017). Incarceration rates and traits of sexual minorities in the United States: National inmate survey, 2011–2012.American Journal of Public Health 107, 267-273, Web.
Montes, A., & Mears, D. (2019). Privatized corrections in the 21st century.Criminology & Public Policy, 18(2), 217-239. Web.
Sawyer, W. & Wagner, P. (2020). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2020.Web.
Torny, M. (2018). Punishment and human dignity: Sentencing principles for twenty-first-century america.Crime and Justice, 47, 1-10. Web.
Weill, J. M. (2020) Prisoners on the fireline: The application of ethical principles and guidelines to prison fire camps.Ethics & Behavior, 30(2), 112-125. Web.