Criminology: Prisons Impact on Crime Rates

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Prisons do not Diminish Crime Rate
Arguments in Support of Prisons and Counterarguments
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The US has experienced a phenomenal increase in its incarceration rate over the last 30 years. Kovandzic and Vieraitis (2006) document that between the years 1980 and 2000, the country witnessed a 321% increase in the total number of prisoners. The number of people serving sentences of more than one year in prisons all over the country rose from just 315,956 in 1980 to 1,329,367 in 2000.

According to DeFina and Hannon (2011), this figure had risen to over 2 million by 2010. This incredible increase in the number of imprisoned people has been caused by the idea that putting more people behind bars will reduce crime. This perception is strongly grounded in the “incapacitation effect” principle, which states that once imprisoned, criminals cannot engage in any criminal activities against the general public.

However, the efficacy of this principle is questionable since the reality has been different, and imprisonment has not always contributed to a reduction in crime. This paper will argue that prisons do not diminish the crime rate since incarceration leads to an increase in delinquent individuals in society and decreases the deterrence effect of prisons.

Prisons do not Diminish Crime Rate

While prisons are intended to reduce the crime rate in society, they can contribute to increases in the crime rate since the prison system often leads to the production of delinquents. DeFina and Hannon (2011) state that prisons contribute to rising in crime since individuals are more likely to commit crimes when they come out of prison that they were before they went in.

While some inmates are already seasoned criminals, the prison population is also made up of first-time offenders and individuals who have not committed serious crimes. This is the case in US prisons, where most inmates have been sentenced for non-serious crimes.

Drehle and Jewler (2010) document that part of the reason for the dramatic increase in the prison population in the US since the 1980s is because lawmakers mandated tougher sentences for all crimes. A system that demands mandatory sentencing for first-time offenders who have not committed violent crimes inevitably locks up thousands of ‘not-so-bad’ people alongside hardened criminals.

Previously law-abiding citizens are prompted to engage in crime since people who are given prison sentences often come out of prison having acquired many anti-social skills and built a network of criminal friends. Prisons, therefore, contribute to the creation of criminals by hardening offenders and enhancing their criminal skills as they serve their sentence.

Increased imprisonment of non-serious offenders reduces the effectiveness of prisons in reducing crime. Imprisonment of serious high-offenders might lead to a significant reduction in crime. However, the currently employed strategy does not focus on high-offenders but also less serious and lower rate offenders (Shepherd, 2006).

This expansive incarceration approach causes the country to miss the desired benefits of crime reduction that prisons might bring. Research by Liedka et al. (2006) shows that when the prison population exceeds a certain point (referred to as the inflection point), further incarceration increases crime. The court system needs to be able to target the right offenders for incarceration for prisons to contribute to crime reduction in society.

High imprisonment rates decrease the effectiveness of prisons as a tool of punishment. Research indicates that States that overuse prisons in an attempt to control crime do not benefit from the desired outcome of lower crime within their counties. This case is best illustrated by Florida, which has established itself as the State whose counties have the highest imprisonment rates in the US.

In spite of the heavy imprisonment rates in the counties, the crime rate in Florida has continued to rise over the years (Kovandzic & Vieraitis, 2006). As more people are imprisoned, the fear associated with prisons is reduced, since imprisonment becomes a part of normal society. High incarceration exposes more members of society to the prison system.

Many people become aware of the prison experience either through their own experience or through that of friends. This increased awareness of the previously unknown prison environment reduces the general deterrence effect of prison punishment.

In some instances, prisons can even be seen as beneficial to the offender since they contribute to status enhancement among his/her peers. When citizens are not afraid to go to prison, they will not have an incentive not to engage in criminal activity that might land them in jail.

Prisons lead to reduced respect for the authority and law enforcement agencies, contributing to higher crime rates in society. While in prison, inmates are exposed to the abuse of power from prison administrators and guards. In addition to this, the prison system is exploitative as the inmates are made to engage in penal labor for little or no pay.

This leads to the development of a sense of injustice by the prisoner, and when he is released into society, he has less respect for the authority. The family and friends of the inmate also suffer from the effects of imprisonment. Prisons are disruptive to the social life of many families in the community (DeFina & Hannon, 2011).

People who have been directly affected by the system, through the incarceration of a close friend or family member, are likely to rebel against the government authority (Rose & Clear, 2004). This leads to a lack of cooperation with policing efforts contributing to higher crime rates.

Arguments in Support of Prisons and Counterarguments

One of the strongest arguments made to show that prisons reduce crime is that imprisonment leads to the incapacitation of offenders. Snyder and Stinchcomb (2006) explain that incarceration is fundamentally designed to make communities safer by keeping criminals away from society. While under confinement in the jail cells, offenders cannot commit the crimes for which they were convicted.

The public is therefore protected from criminal activity leading to reduced crime rates. While it is true that prisons play an important role through incapacitation, this might not lead to a reduction in crime rate in the society. The incapacitation effect is only limited to prisoners who are currently serving time.

The fact is that at any one time, the number of ex-convicts living in society is larger than that of the prisoners incapacitated by jail cells (Clear, Rose & Ryder, 2007). DeFina and Hannon (2011) assert that a full assessment of the effect of prisons on crime must “account for the detrimental impacts of past incarcerations” (p.19). In addition to this, the incapacitation effect principle fails to consider new criminals.

Incapacitation locks out the convicted offenders, but it does not affect youths and young adults considering the criminal activity. Spelman (2008) asserts that the removal of active offenders from society does not lead to a reduction in crime rates if these offenders are being replaced by fresh criminals.

Prisons contribute to crime reduction from playing a deterrence role. Imprisonment is designed to punish the offender by restricting his movement and denying him/her of many freedoms. Licht (2008) states that prison sentences enable the court system to effectively punish wrongdoers. This leads to significant distress, and many people are careful to avoid engaging in actions that might lead to imprisonment.

Prisons, therefore, discourage people from engaging in criminal activities since they might face the undesirable consequences of imprisonment (Drehle & Jewler, 2010). While it is true that prison plays a deterrence role, this deterrence is not dependent on the number of people imprisoned. Research indicates that the deterrent effect of prison might be significantly reduced by expanding incarceration.

Part of prison’s deterrence comes from the stigma that incarceration produces. People are careful to avoid prison since society views prisoners and ex-prisoners negatively. However, expanding incarceration will result in reduced stigmatization (Kovandzic & Vieraitis, 2006).

Rose and Clear (2004) document that due to the increase in imprisonment rates, most people in the US know somebody who is in prison. This exposure to prison decreases the stigma that incarceration previously carried.

Conclusion

This paper set out to show that prisons do not diminish crime rates in society. It began by highlighting the phenomenal increase in prisoner numbers in the US. By relying on studies carried out by criminology researchers, the paper has shown that high prison rates are not associated with lower crime rates. This paper has shown that instead of diminishing the crime rate in society, prisons have a crime-promoting effect.

The overuse of the expensive prisons by the criminal justice system should be reconsidered. The enormous expenses have been justified by the supposed positive effect that prisons have on crime rates. However, considering that this relationship between prison and crime rates is faulty, policymakers should make use of other strategies to tackle crime in society.

References

Clear, T., Rose, D., & Ryder, J. (2007). Incarceration and the community: The Problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 3 (2), 335-351.

DeFina, R., & Hannon, L. (2011). Mass Imprisonment Long-Term Harm versus Short-Term Good. Communities & Banking, 23(3), 18-20.

Drehle, V., & Jewler, S. (2010). Why Crime Went Away. Time, 175(7), 32-35.

Kovandzic, T.V., & Vieraitis, L.M. (2006). The Effect of County-Level Prison Population Growth on Crime Rates. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(2), 213-244.

Licht, A. N. (2008). Social Norms and the Law: Why People Obey the Law. Review of Law and Economics, 4 (2), 715–750.

Liedka, R., A. Piehl and B. Useem. 2006. The crime-control effect of incarceration: Does scale matter? Criminology and Public Policy, 5(2):245-276.

Rose, D., & Clear, T. (2004) Who doesn’t know someone in prison or jail: The impact of exposure to prison on attitudes toward formal and informal social control. Prison Journal, 82(1), 208-227.

Shepherd, J. (2006). The imprisonment puzzle: Understanding how prison growth affects crime. Criminology and Public Policy, 5(2):285-298.

Snyder, H.N., & Stinchcomb, J.B. (2006). Do Higher Incarceration Rates Mean Lower Crime Rates? Today, 68(6), 92-97.

Spelman, W. (2008). Specifying the Relationship Between Crime and Prisons. J Quant Criminol, 24(1), 149–178.

Click Here To Order Now!