Krimpedia – das Kriminologie-Wiki

Against Prisons: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Against Prisons (Quelltext anzeigen)

Version vom 5. August 2016, 12:35 Uhr

33 Bytes hinzugefügt ,  12:35, 5. Aug. 2016
keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung
Zeile 2: Zeile 2:


Such demands require explanations as to the Why and the How. This is why we wrote this contribution. In doing so we tried not to ignore the counter arguments. For instance, we acknowledge without hesitation that "this is not the right time to talk about prison abolition". We do not deny that the invention of the penitentiary had been a significant advance over preceding sanctions. We give the prison credit for the attempt to find a compromise between the divergent and conflicting objectives that it is burdened with. But we insist on the fact that it is high time to abandon both the ideology and practice of imprisonment as a standard response to crime. And we insist on our argument that it is not only urgent to free ourselves from this institution of confinement, but that it is is also possible to do so without losses in terms of victims' rights, security concerns or the rule of law.   
Such demands require explanations as to the Why and the How. This is why we wrote this contribution. In doing so we tried not to ignore the counter arguments. For instance, we acknowledge without hesitation that "this is not the right time to talk about prison abolition". We do not deny that the invention of the penitentiary had been a significant advance over preceding sanctions. We give the prison credit for the attempt to find a compromise between the divergent and conflicting objectives that it is burdened with. But we insist on the fact that it is high time to abandon both the ideology and practice of imprisonment as a standard response to crime. And we insist on our argument that it is not only urgent to free ourselves from this institution of confinement, but that it is is also possible to do so without losses in terms of victims' rights, security concerns or the rule of law.   
== Not without merits ==
The prison is not without merits. Probably the best thing that can be said about it is that it is much better than the punishments that immediately preceded the birth of the modern penitentiary. Just think of executions like this one in Berlin in the year 1800 (from Evans 1997: 194):
:“The woman was tied down and quickly strangled, and her limbs and neck were broken by a series of blows with the heavy cartwheel wielded by the executioner. In accordance with standard practice her body was then untied and fastened to the wheel, which was placed horizontally on a long upright pole fixed into the ground next to the scaffold … The head was cut off and stuck on top of the pole.”
Some decades after this event, when at last the custom of breaking the offender on the wheel had landed in the dustbin of history - together with the whole repugnant spectacle of the pillory, of public whippings, brandings, mutilations or at times having the offender boiled in oil or burned at the stake - the era of imprisonment in penitentiaries was greeted with almost unanimous relief. The penitentiary was a punishment designed as a keeper, not a killer. Those who were confined within its walls were seen as sinners who could be redeemed and who – in principle – deserved a second chance. A chance not only to walk through its gates once they they had done their time, but to be willing, able, and permitted to re-insert themselves into the day-to-day life of ordinary citizens. Free to start, as one says, a new life. The promise of the prison never to return to the atrocities of earlier times was and still is one of the strongest arguments in its favour.
The second best thing that can be said about the prison is that it does "work" to a certain extent. It works less for its inmates, but it is good enough from the perspective of the penal spectator (Brown 2009). It serves its first purpose - which is to punish criminal offenders for their misdeeds - sufficiently well by sending out strong signals of disapproval and support. It stigmatizes the offender, it supports the victims, it re-assures the public that the norm is still in force (violations will not be tolerated), and it is at least a clear symbolic message for potential future offenders not to succumb to the seductions of crime. But it also gives the impression of fulfilling its second important function - which is to neutralize dangerous offenders for the time of their sentence (incapacitation). Basically, who is behind bars does (by definition) not constitute a threat to people in the community. In more cases than none, the prison even lives up to its third promise - that of giving offenders a chance to learn and to develop both cognitively and emotionally, so that at the time of release they can lead a better and a law-abiding life (rehabilitation).
As Vivien Stern (2006, ch. 2) explains:
:“All may not be well within the high walls of the prison, but for those outside, the high walls, the watchtowers and maybe also the stories of dreadful happenings within are symbols of the power of the state to punish. They are a reassurance to the public that they will be protected from people who prey on them and threaten public peace. (…). Whether prisons are unjust and violent inside, whether they make the people who go to them better or worse, need not concern the law-abiding citizen. One thing is sure. Prisons protect society by holding people who would otherwise be outside, stealing, robbing, terrorizing, smuggling, causing damage and spreading fear.
:So prisons – with their grey walls, watchtowers, razor wire and brooding blocks with small barred windows – symbolize the maintenance of law. They keep locked away people who would do harm to others. More than that, they also prevent crime in another way (…). Prison is such a grim place and loss of freedom is a very harsh punishment. People do not want to lose their freedom and the thought of being sent to prison stops the potential law-breaker committing a crime that would otherwise have been committed. The existence of the prison punishment deters people from committing crime. (…)
:[A]lso (…) prisons can be good places, serving a useful purpose. They can be places of reform where criminals go in as bad people and come out a little better. Being sent to prison will teach them a lesson […or…] give them a chance they never had before to learn a trade, give up taking illegal drugs or get educated (…).”
In this sense, prison works. It generates all sorts of counterproductive phenomena. But it is an accepted part of social reality. Beyond that, prison construction creates jobs. To run prisons means employment for hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of persons worldwide. Not to mention the shareholder profits of such giants of the prison-industrial complex as the Corrections Corporation of America. Seen from the perspective of ''Realpolitik'', the history of the prison has all ingredients of a tremendous success story. 


== An Untimely Issue ==
== An Untimely Issue ==
Zeile 15: Zeile 34:


We can only assess the force of this demand for prisons realistically when we go back in time until, let us say, 1971. At that time, Norway had an imprisonment rate of 37 inmates per 100 000 inhabitants. Experts largely agreed in those days that the Scandinavian countries - and the Netherlands (with a rate of 22 per 100 000) - were the models to follow. Not only in terms of their rates, but also in view of their conditions of imprisonment - conditions which were then sometimes described as "a home away from home", with the social distance between inmates and guards so reduced that it became hard to tell who was a guard and who an inmate (Pratt 2002: 145).
We can only assess the force of this demand for prisons realistically when we go back in time until, let us say, 1971. At that time, Norway had an imprisonment rate of 37 inmates per 100 000 inhabitants. Experts largely agreed in those days that the Scandinavian countries - and the Netherlands (with a rate of 22 per 100 000) - were the models to follow. Not only in terms of their rates, but also in view of their conditions of imprisonment - conditions which were then sometimes described as "a home away from home", with the social distance between inmates and guards so reduced that it became hard to tell who was a guard and who an inmate (Pratt 2002: 145).
=== Punitive turn ===


Almost half a century later, the "punitive turn" that had begun soon after 1971 is still not over. As a result, there are more people behind bars today than at any other time in human history (about 10 million). The Dutch and Norwegian rates of imprisonment are hovering around 70, and in the rest of the world things look grimmer still. A report on global prison trends (PRI 2015: 7) states:  
Almost half a century later, the "punitive turn" that had begun soon after 1971 is still not over. As a result, there are more people behind bars today than at any other time in human history (about 10 million). The Dutch and Norwegian rates of imprisonment are hovering around 70, and in the rest of the world things look grimmer still. A report on global prison trends (PRI 2015: 7) states:  
Zeile 25: Zeile 46:


In such a situation, a radical critique of prisons - one that is envisaging neither a "mere" improvement of living conditions in prison nor a reduction of imprisonment rates, but an outright abolition of all prisons - is a rather untimely endeavor, to say the least. Often, it is even being reproached of being counterproductive. Criminal policy makers deplore the paradoxical consequences of the abolitionist discourse which in their opinion - while chasing the end of the rainbow - fails to engage in realistic reform projects, belittles the seriousness of crime, estranges itself from both victims and public opinion (e.g., van Dijk 1989; Guimarães 2016).
In such a situation, a radical critique of prisons - one that is envisaging neither a "mere" improvement of living conditions in prison nor a reduction of imprisonment rates, but an outright abolition of all prisons - is a rather untimely endeavor, to say the least. Often, it is even being reproached of being counterproductive. Criminal policy makers deplore the paradoxical consequences of the abolitionist discourse which in their opinion - while chasing the end of the rainbow - fails to engage in realistic reform projects, belittles the seriousness of crime, estranges itself from both victims and public opinion (e.g., van Dijk 1989; Guimarães 2016).
=== Anti-Abolitionism ===


In this vein, the then British Minister of State for Police and Criminal Justice, Nick Herbert (2008), made himself the spokesperson for anti-abolitionist resentment when commenting on the 12th ''International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA)'' hosted by the Howard League at King's College, London, in the summer of 2008. Coming out in defense of prisons he accused the organizers of what he called ''the abolitionists' criminal conspiracy'', and went on to say that  
In this vein, the then British Minister of State for Police and Criminal Justice, Nick Herbert (2008), made himself the spokesperson for anti-abolitionist resentment when commenting on the 12th ''International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA)'' hosted by the Howard League at King's College, London, in the summer of 2008. Coming out in defense of prisons he accused the organizers of what he called ''the abolitionists' criminal conspiracy'', and went on to say that  
Zeile 42: Zeile 65:
It may not be the right moment to speak about abolishing prisons altogether. But what does that mean? Does it mean to hide the truth and to shut up, does it mean to tolerate the misery of imprisoned persons all over the world without even making it known? That cannot be the answer. In our opinion, French abolitionist Catherine Baker (2004: 13) was right when she insisted that prison abolition must be discussed at inopportune times - this being the only way to ensure that one day it will be the right moment: "Autrement dit, ce n’est pas le moment de parler de supprimer les prisons. Mais l’abolition de ce châtiment aussi cruel qu’irrationnel doit être discutée à contretemps, c’est le seul moyen pour qu’un jour il en soit temps."
It may not be the right moment to speak about abolishing prisons altogether. But what does that mean? Does it mean to hide the truth and to shut up, does it mean to tolerate the misery of imprisoned persons all over the world without even making it known? That cannot be the answer. In our opinion, French abolitionist Catherine Baker (2004: 13) was right when she insisted that prison abolition must be discussed at inopportune times - this being the only way to ensure that one day it will be the right moment: "Autrement dit, ce n’est pas le moment de parler de supprimer les prisons. Mais l’abolition de ce châtiment aussi cruel qu’irrationnel doit être discutée à contretemps, c’est le seul moyen pour qu’un jour il en soit temps."


== Historical Merit ==
== Unattained goals ==
The prison is not without merits. Probably the best thing that can be said about it is that it is much better than the punishments that immediately preceded the birth of the modern penitentiary. Just think of executions like this one in Berlin in the year 1800 (from Evans 1997: 194):
 
:“The woman was tied down and quickly strangled, and her limbs and neck were broken by a series of blows with the heavy cartwheel wielded by the executioner. In accordance with standard practice her body was then untied and fastened to the wheel, which was placed horizontally on a long upright pole fixed into the ground next to the scaffold … The head was cut off and stuck on top of the pole.”
 
Some decades after this event, when at last the custom of breaking the offender on the wheel had landed in the dustbin of history - together with the whole repugnant spectacle of the pillory, of public whippings, brandings, mutilations or at times having the offender boiled in oil or burned at the stake - the era of imprisonment in penitentiaries was greeted with almost unanimous relief. The penitentiary was a punishment designed as a keeper, not a killer. Those who were confined within its walls were seen as sinners who could be redeemed and who – in principle – deserved a second chance. A chance not only to walk through its gates once they they had done their time, but to be willing, able, and permitted to re-insert themselves into the day-to-day life of ordinary citizens. Free to start, as one says, a new life. The promise of the prison never to return to the atrocities of earlier times was and still is one of the strongest arguments in its favour.
 
== Prison Works ==
 
The second best thing that can be said about the prison is that it does "work" to a certain extent. It works less for its inmates, but it is good enough from the perspective of the penal spectator (Brown 2009). It serves its first purpose - which is to punish criminal offenders for their misdeeds - sufficiently well by sending out strong signals of disapproval and support. It stigmatizes the offender, it supports the victims, it re-assures the public that the norm is still in force (violations will not be tolerated), and it is at least a clear symbolic message for potential future offenders not to succumb to the seductions of crime. But it also gives the impression of fulfilling its second important function - which is to neutralize dangerous offenders for the time of their sentence (incapacitation). Basically, who is behind bars does (by definition) not constitute a threat to people in the community. In more cases than none, the prison even lives up to its third promise - that of giving offenders a chance to learn and to develop both cognitively and emotionally, so that at the time of release they can lead a better and a law-abiding life (rehabilitation).
 
As Vivien Stern (2006, ch. 2) explains:
 
:“All may not be well within the high walls of the prison, but for those outside, the high walls, the watchtowers and maybe also the stories of dreadful happenings within are symbols of the power of the state to punish. They are a reassurance to the public that they will be protected from people who prey on them and threaten public peace. (…). Whether prisons are unjust and violent inside, whether they make the people who go to them better or worse, need not concern the law-abiding citizen. One thing is sure. Prisons protect society by holding people who would otherwise be outside, stealing, robbing, terrorizing, smuggling, causing damage and spreading fear.
 
:So prisons – with their grey walls, watchtowers, razor wire and brooding blocks with small barred windows – symbolize the maintenance of law. They keep locked away people who would do harm to others. More than that, they also prevent crime in another way (…). Prison is such a grim place and loss of freedom is a very harsh punishment. People do not want to lose their freedom and the thought of being sent to prison stops the potential law-breaker committing a crime that would otherwise have been committed. The existence of the prison punishment deters people from committing crime. (…)
 
:[A]lso (…) prisons can be good places, serving a useful purpose. They can be places of reform where criminals go in as bad people and come out a little better. Being sent to prison will teach them a lesson […or…] give them a chance they never had before to learn a trade, give up taking illegal drugs or get educated (…).”
 
In this sense, prison works. It generates all sorts of counterproductive phenomena. But it is an accepted part of social reality. Beyond that, prison construction creates jobs. To run prisons means employment for hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of persons worldwide. Not to mention the shareholder profits of such giants of the prison-industrial complex as the Corrections Corporation of America. Seen from the perspective of ''Realpolitik'', the history of the prison has all ingredients of a tremendous success story. 
 
== Prison Problems ==


Expansion and acceptance are only one side of the coin, though. We should not ignore the other one, either - that of the shortcomings and the real (human and material) costs of prison. To begin with the shortcomings, we have to scratch the surface - and we will find a list of unkept promises ranging from unsatisfactory offender rehabilitation over questions regarding incapacitation all the way to the limits of deterrence.  
Expansion and acceptance are only one side of the coin, though. We should not ignore the other one, either - that of the shortcomings and the real (human and material) costs of prison. To begin with the shortcomings, we have to scratch the surface - and we will find a list of unkept promises ranging from unsatisfactory offender rehabilitation over questions regarding incapacitation all the way to the limits of deterrence.  
Woozle
1.005

Bearbeitungen

Abgerufen von „https://www.krimpedia.de/Spezial:Mobiler_Unterschied/74280“