“The aims of sentencing are now considered to be retribution, deterrence and protection, and modern sentencing policy reflects a combination of several or all of these aims. The retributive element is intended to show a public revulsion of the offence and to punish the offender for his wrong conduct. Deterrent sentences are aimed at deterring not only the actual offender from further offences but also potential offenders from breaking the law. The importance of reformation of the offender is shown by growing emphasis laid upon it by much of modern legislation. However, the protection of society is often overriding consideration. In addition, reparation is becoming an important objective in sentencing.”
At its core, the purpose of an offender’s sentencing has always been to punish them for their conduct. This may be in the form of a monetary fine, community service or, depending on the severity of the offence, a custodial sentence. Once a custodial sentence is imposed, that offender is now subject to the prison system. The aims of sentencing an offender are identified in the excerpt above and indeed it is important to highlight the fact that offender reformation appears to garner more support and emphasis as modern legislation considers that particular principle of sentencing.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines rehabilitation in several ways. These include the action, process, or result of rehabilitating or of being rehabilitated such as restoration, especially by therapeutic means to an improved condition of physical function; the process of restoring someone (such as a criminal) to a useful and constructive place in society; and the restoration of something damaged or deteriorated to a prior good condition. Considering the definition of the action of rehabilitation, have the prison systems provided a place where offenders can essentially be restored to an improved condition or to a useful and constructive place in society?
Sir Martin Narey, a former Director General of the Prison Service in the United Kingdom, told attendees in a speech at the International Corrections and Prison Association conference in Buenos Aires that rehabilitation of offenders in jail does not work and should be abolished. He added that there is not enough research that establishes a causal link between rehabilitation and reduced reoffending and that the short courses offered in jail cannot fix the many problems experienced as a result of difficult childhoods. In many prisons based in the United States and the United Kingdom, rehabilitative services include classroom settings that provide inmates with opportunities to read and educate themselves, or programs that require them to work in different capacities throughout the institution in return for monetary compensation.
In their paper “The Benefits of Rehabilitative Incarceration”, Gordon B. Dahl and Magne Mogstad sought to provide some insight into how incarceration affects recidivism, employment, children, and criminal networks to counter the former doctrine outlined by policymakers and scholars that “nothing works”. They note that incarceration of prisoners can have varying results such as deterring offenders from future crime; rehabilitating them by providing vocational training or wellness programmes; leading to recidivism and unemployment as a result of exposure to hardened criminals or workplace or societal stigma. They also remark that incarceration extends beyond the offender himself/herself and can spread to other family members, and that the effects of any incarceration also depend on the prisoner’s characteristics and the conditions of the prison. For the purposes of their study, the authors reviewed the prison system in Norway and made several findings in contrast to the prison system in the United States. The first finding was that in Norway, similar to other European countries, the prison sentences were much shorter and a greater emphasis was placed on rehabilitation than punishment. They noted that the average time spent in prison was six months compared to almost three years in the United States. Additionally, in Norway, like in other European countries, low-level offenders are placed in open prisons with more freedoms and responsibilities in contrast to the United States which places high-level offenders in closed prisons with more security. It is also highlighted by the authors that Norwegian prisons are not overcrowded and have better personal security as each prisoner is afforded their own cell and a higher prisoner-to-staff ratio as opposed to the United States.
It is evident that the goal of rehabilitation is paramount in other European countries such as the Netherlands and Germany, whose Prison Act states: “the sole aim of incarceration is to enable prisoners to lead a life of social responsibility free of crime upon release.” Following a tour of Dutch and German prison facilities in 2014 by criminal justice officials from Colorado, Georgia and Pennsylvania, a report by the Vera-European Prison Project highlighted the stark differences between the European prison system and the United States. One of the differences is that prisoners are granted more autonomy. They are able to wear their own clothes, make their own meals and are required to work and take classes. They also receive a sense of privacy as guards knock before entering their cells; they are given their own keys to their cells and have separate, walled toilets. This contrasts with the United States where prisoners are often on a strict routine such as showering at the same time every day, wearing uniforms and eating the same food, which ultimately takes away their independence. Another finding was that in German and Dutch prison systems they remain connected to the outside world, for example they are able to go home on weekends (if they are low-level offenders) and maintain certain rights while incarcerated such as the right to vote. In addition to the above, Dutch and German prison systems have different treatments for young offenders whereby the courts utilize minimum intervention and impose measures such as fines, warnings, mediation, restitution, reparation, social or vocational training or community service orders. Imprisonment is often the last resort for young offenders. Lastly, the use of solitary confinement is rare and when done it is only for a few hours or days.
The comparisons highlighted above show a difference in the way two jurisdictions seek to handle those that are incarcerated. It is evident that the intent of one jurisdiction is to rehabilitate rather than punish. These systems may provide numerous opportunities such as work release programmes, educational and vocational training in an effort to “successfully” prepare offenders for their lives outside of prison; however, if the system itself fails to treat them humanely then it is probable that they will reoffend. One jurisdiction strips their prisoners of their autonomy while another appears to provide their prisoners with decision-making tools while imprisoned.
Sir Martin Narey in his speech remarked that the “the best the prison estate can offer prisoners is an environment where they are treated with ‘decency and dignity’. Decent prisons in which prisoners are respected seem to provide a foundation for prisoner self-growth. Indecent, unsafe prisons allow no such growth and further damage those who have to survive there.”