As criminology matured as a field, a compelling idea took hold: that offenders were not simply bad people but, in a real sense, sick people – victims of social deprivation who needed treatment rather than punishment. The psychiatrist Karl Menninger was among the most confident advocates of this view, arguing that new scientific understanding of crime made the traditional, punitive concept of imprisonment look excessive and outdated. On the strength of this belief, the United States and several other countries launched a wave of rehabilitation programs aimed at reforming prisoners and returning them to society with their legal standing restored.
The theory did not survive contact with the data. After 1970, rising crime rates in the United States cast serious doubt on the psychiatric model of treatment, and a series of targeted studies failed to turn up any reliable method for reliably turning offenders back into productive members of society. Robert Martinson’s famous review of the evidence reached a blunt conclusion that came to define the era: essentially nothing worked. That failure reopened an old and unresolved tension – between punishing offenders and rehabilitating them – that still runs through how societies think about prison today.
The Case for Serving Time
Researchers Robert Johnson and Jackson Toch both argue that offenders should, in fact, serve real time in prison. They do not dispute the standard criticisms of jails – inadequate healthcare, chronic overcrowding – but they maintain that prisons remain genuinely useful institutions, capable, if run well, of treating prisoners with real fairness. Their argument reaches back to Plato, who held that the true purpose of just punishment is always moral instruction and the personal reform of the offender: after punishment, a person should emerge better than before, or, failing that, at least less of a danger to society upon return. For Plato, punishment was never meant to simply mirror the harm the offender had caused – its only legitimate aim was to produce whatever degree of reform the offender actually needed. If prison is to function as a fair form of punishment, that same goal – using confinement itself as an occasion for genuine relief and correction – has to be the point of the exercise.
Time in prison is hard on the people serving it, and it is meant to be – that discomfort is inseparable from what a prison sentence is. Even so, and even though prison rarely causes lasting physical harm, the plain fact is that the rate of genuine reform inside prison walls is very low. Few people learn anything useful behind bars. Much of the reason is that prisoners often come to see the environment around them as fundamentally unjust, and adjust to it rather than resist it – at which point a sentence starts functioning less as correction and more as a place where people are simply sent to be forgotten. Instead of coming out better, some come out worse. And yet it is entirely possible to lead something like a decent, ordered existence inside prison, and to carry that back into a decent, ordered life outside it afterward – meaning a prison sentence genuinely can be a constructive, formative experience. It shouldn’t be expected to work for everyone, and the fact that only a modest share of prisoners are actually reformed is not, on its own, evidence that the whole institution is a lie.
Prison as a Halfway Point Back to the World
It is true that only a modest minority of prisoners can be trusted to help carry the weight of prison life, easing the burden for others and giving the whole institution some kind of workable structure. Prisoners who make a corner of prison life bearable for themselves often end up, in the process, becoming a resource for others too – even inside what remains, at its worst, a genuinely brutal environment. One practical answer is to treat parts of the prison system as rehearsal space: a place, positioned deliberately before full release, where a prisoner can practice functioning in the world again.
Ronald J. Powell, a labor leader writing in the Manchester Union in March 1987, put the case for this bluntly: “These are hard, unsentimental facts, difficult to shake off. Prison is not a complete answer to these questions, and it isn’t the final solution either. But some prisons genuinely are more just than others – that much is undeniable. And failing to create more opportunity inside them, out of some reluctance to meet that urgent need, is more dangerous than the alternative.”
Making this work requires sorting prisoners by custody level and building rehabilitation programs suited to each person’s actual circumstances and capacity – and creating an environment, calibrated to that custody level, in which how a prisoner responds to structure and pressure can actually be observed and worked with. It is an ambitious plan, but the resources for it do exist: trustworthy prisoners can be identified and enlisted to help; experienced staff, particularly those genuinely committed to reform, can supervise classification and order. Done properly, a prison can run real educational, vocational, and transparent programs on a working budget, tailored to different prisoners’ different problems rather than applied as one blanket routine. Its most important job, in the end, is giving prisoners a chance to practice being decent citizens before they’re expected to simply become one on the outside – which matters most for the low-income prisoners who make up a disproportionate share of the prison population and are also the most likely to return.
Custody itself, handled honestly, can be a source of real suffering – but that same difficult stretch of time can become a genuine opportunity for rebuilding a life, if the challenge it presents is actually met rather than merely endured.
Prison’s Brutal History
Prisons carry a grim reputation, and plenty of the stories behind it – assault, extortion, forgery, murder – are true, even if some are exaggerated in the retelling. Cruelty by prison staff is not some paranoid myth, either; officers have genuinely been implicated in abuse in real, documented cases, even though most staff conduct themselves in a straightforwardly professional way. Until the eighteenth century, prisons in the modern sense barely existed at all, and state violence against offenders was simply accepted as the normal principle of justice. People convicted of serious crimes were enslaved or killed by brutal means. In North Carolina, at least ten offenses classified as sinful carried a mandatory death sentence.
The prison, in fact, was invented as an alternative to exactly this kind of harsh punishment, only about two hundred years ago. Dungeons had existed for a thousand years before that, used by rulers to lock away rebels – but a dungeon was not a prison in the modern sense, and it was not built for convicted criminals. It held the accused only until trial, and debtors only until their debts were paid. The idea of imprisonment itself – the deliberate removal of freedom as the punishment – was not something even reform-minded thinkers of the time had fully accepted.
That changed with Dr. Benjamin Rush, an American physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence, who presented a paper to a small circle of intellectuals at his home on March 9, 1787, grounded in his reading of the Bible. Rush proposed solitary confinement as an alternative to traditional physical punishment. His idea led directly to the founding of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, where the process of penitence – the origin of the word “penitentiary” – began in earnest, built on the belief that a law-breaker could genuinely be rehabilitated.
Reality lagged well behind the ideal. American prisons did not reach anything resembling humane treatment until well into the nineteenth century. Most inflicted brutal punishment for the most routine violations. New York’s Auburn prison forbade inmates from speaking to one another at all; those who broke the rule were whipped in front of the other prisoners. Inmates were held in cells with no light or ventilation. Chained and standing against a wall, some were targeted with high-pressure jets of water as punishment. Prisoners, in practice, were treated as property of the state.
How Far American Prisons Have Actually Come
Today’s American prisons look almost unrecognisable by comparison – not bare floors and straw bedding, but proper bedding, decent food, heated rooms, clothing, access to lawyers, libraries, telephones, and legal aid, alongside genuine channels for raising complaints about prison administration. Many now offer education and vocational training, even college coursework, to occupy prisoners’ time constructively. All of it is funded by the taxes of the very public that also expects strict security in return. Perhaps the single greatest protection prisoners have gained is protection from the arbitrary cruelty of guards – prisoners are now shielded from each other, but critically, also from abuse by the people meant to be guarding them.
None of this happened on its own. In 1960, a warden’s word was effectively law inside an American prison, unchallengeable by any inmate. That changed largely through the courts: federal courts and the federal government have repeatedly intervened to protect prisoners’ civil and human rights, restoring rights that had simply been assumed away. By 1978, roughly 8,720 cases concerning prisoners’ civil rights were pending in federal courts, and prison officials spent considerable time defending themselves against allegations that their administrative decisions violated rights guaranteed under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. That sustained judicial pressure is precisely what forced the reduction of restrictions on correspondence with friends and family, press access, interviews, and religious practice. American courts continue to review physical searches, transfers, medical and dental care, food, solitary confinement, heating, and bathing facilities in prisons – and without that ongoing judicial oversight, conditions that would otherwise amount to cruel and unusual punishment could quietly become the norm again.
A Standard Most Countries Cannot Afford
Running a prison system to that standard is expensive – and it is worth being honest about who can and cannot afford it. Forty-three countries, including Nepal and Pakistan, have a GNP per capita below $500. These countries simply cannot run prison systems on the American model, and their prisoners do not receive anything close to what American prisoners now receive as a matter of course. In many poorer countries, it is standard practice for a prisoner’s own family to supply their food; a prisoner with no family or friends to rely on can genuinely go hungry, and in the worst cases, starve.
National wealth alone, though, is no guarantee of humane custody either. Russia’s labor camps and various Caribbean prisons are notorious for physical punishment and psychological coercion regardless of resources available. In more than a few places, political prisoners are treated with even greater cruelty than convicted murderers and armed robbers – a particularly stark injustice, and a reminder that decent treatment in custody is ultimately a matter of political will as much as it is a matter of money.
No Comments