Effects of Incarceration and Punishments

Effects of Incarceration and Punishments

Summary

Jacobs’ article explains several problems in criminal justice in the United States and how prisoner’s punishment mutilates liberal democratic legal order and civil society. According to him, these problems are more severe in the United States as compared to other countries. Overcriminalization, poor conditions in overcrowded prisons, lack of health resources and harsh sentences for multiple offences, are among the many problems of criminal justice. Excessive punishment renders the prisoners less able to reintegrate into civil society. Jacobs defines civil society as one where liberal democracy is practised and whose elements include leisure activities, economic activity, education, cultural and religious life, among others (2014). He adds that in civil society, there are laws and rules meant to protect the rights of people. Individuals are to required one another equally under the law. He further explains how imprisonment worsens the prisoners, demoralizing them and worsening their character, thus making them unfit for the civil society.

Jacob adds that incarceration also hinders reinforcement and acquisition of civil disposition. Prisoners with the limited civil disposition and worsened character cannot participate efficiently in civil society. Such prisoners return to their criminogenic ways when they fail to renter the civil society. More than half of the released prisoners rarely last for long in the community before being rearrested. It is not their wish to spend their lifetime in prisons, but the impediments hinder their desires. In addition, ex-prisoners face ineligibilities and disqualifications in society (Jacobs, 2014). Voting is a right for everyone but the ex-prisoners. Also, public benefits like food stamps and student loans are not readily available to them. Unemployment, homelessness, and lack of skills render the ex-prisoners unable to change their direction in life.

According to Jacob, socio-economic conditions favouring criminal conduct is rarely considered compared with the individual committing the crime. When one commits a crime, he or she retains the word criminal due to suspicion and uncivil attitudes directed towards them. By highlighting all the harms caused by imprisonment, Jacob doesn’t suggest the abolition of imprisonment or even the punishment but instead, insist on the justification of such punishments (2014). He believes that punishments should be proportional to the crime committed. By limiting such punishments to the deserved ones, then the condition of the incarcerated changes for better and also lessen the disqualifications and other impediments faced when they are released.

There is no proof that imprisonment encourages ethical self-correction on prisoners, but there is proof that it worsens and demoralize their character. Haney adds that overcrowded prisons contribute to the rising criminogenic risks that prisoners need to overcome after imprisonment. The inmates reporting back home are more spoilt than before. They are less educated, exposed to substance abuse and more disconnected from their close relatives and friends. Jacobs suggests that new conditions need to be put in place to help reduce the prison population (2014). He also explains how inmates create their regime and rules that dedicate their actions towards a particular aspect. Sex offenders are likely to be assaulted, thus require special protection. Such inmates may do away with their ability to maintain sexual intimacy once they are out of prison. Sexuality, value judgment and several other ways of regarding inmates are affected by certain conditions prevailing in prisons. Such conditions create attitudes and habits inefficient to civil society. According to Jacobs,” there is substantial evidence of incarceration doing damage and worsening prisoners, which results in loss to civil society more broadly (2014).”  Also, several factors, such as race and ethnicity, play a part in grouping the inmates.

Jacobs also highlights the bright side of prisons, whereby wardens can work in solving the unhealthy and poor conditions while some inmates take courses to enlighten their future after prison. Earning such meaningful behaviour helps them after prison when reintegrating with civil society. However, incarceration affects one’s character. In a civil society, people are expected to be trustworthy and demonstrate trust, accept the way others choose to live their life and restrain from passing their values to others. Such methods help in realizing an open, pluralistic society (Jacobs, 2014). Lack of strongman regime in a country lacking the genuine rule of law results in untrustworthiness, lack of innovative initiative and energy that portray a flourishing civil society. Having a regime will help attain specific commitments and attitudes, thereby building a community that encourages individual states of character.

Jacobs differentiates a liberal state from an illiberal one. According to him, a progressive state requires a certain disposition to be sustained while an illiberal state makes it hard for citizens to portray civil disposition. Resentment and alienation towards criminal justice practices and norms can weaken the liberal-democratic rule of law support. According to him, the resentful and alienated people tend to be suspicious of politics, the rule of law and institutions. Also, people can end up losing interest in liberal democracy which is not responsive (Jacobs, 2014). Preserving openness in a society threatened by extreme distrust and ideological politics, a civil disposition is essential. Many prisoners are more exposed to the alienated distrust rather than civil disposition. A state with demoralized citizens lacks the resources essential in preserving a liberal order and sustaining civility. When people’s civil disposition and mutual respect are nor reliable, then liberal principles take part in shaping the rule of law, thus protecting individuals from other people’s harm and mistreatment. Duff notes that liberal communitarian help citizens achieve freedom, the goods of autonomy, and privacy. He argues the need for helping the prisoners during the incarceration period to equip them with the necessary skills in life. The main aim of imprisonment is to help the prisoners reconcile with those they wronged.

Reaction

I agree with Jacobs, that prisons should help the prisoners reconcile with these they wronged and equip them with the necessary skills to help them reintegrate into the civil society. Punishing prisoners is acceptable but should be proportional to the crime. Otherwise, prisons may end up producing more criminals than upright ex-prisoners. Such prisoners find it hard to reenter the civil society due to their disrupted morals and behaviours. The prisoners will merely spend more time in society before they are rearrested and taken back to the prisons. Overcrowding in prisons will never cease if this cycle continues. It is high time for prisons to provide the essential skills and additional courses to prisoners who will sooner or later reenter the civil society where they face all forms of discrimination. Jacobs describes how ex-prisoners face several disqualifications and ineligibilities (Jacobs, 2014). They are exposed to the least paying jobs since finding suitable employment is a problem for people with a criminal record. Lack of skills and education renders them homeless and financially broke. Even their right to enjoy public benefits like food stamps is denied.

I think Jacobs’ idea of making punishment proportional to the crime is essential in lessening the impediments faced by ex-prisoners. When one commits a crime that is punishable for two years imprisonment but is instead offered a more severe punishment, then the individual will have a hard time reintegrating into the society (Jacobs, 2014). Such individuals go through a hard time of suffering and pain that will make them revenge for the harsh conditions they were subjected to. In one way or the other, they will end up in prison serving more years and becoming harder. It is, therefore, essential to limit punishment to what is deserved.

I have also found that Jacobs’ findings are essential in modifying our criminal justice system. We are aware that our system of rendering justice is not just. The damages imprisonment has on prisoners is severe to the extent of making them unable to reintegrate into society. Our societies also promote criminal conduct rather than providing a safe environment. Less imprisonment is a crucial consideration in civil society (Jacobs, 2014). Many prisoners are unable to participate in the community due to the little guidance and preparation they receive before release. The huge number of prisoners is a limiting factor to such training and guidance. If the criminal justice system is considerate and fair at some point, many prisoners should receive less punishment to avoid overcrowded prisons and unprepared prisoners. Incarceration damaging prisoners will, in turn, result in a damaged civil society.

Studying ethics in criminal justice helps us come up with different views that could help solve certain situations. Studying various behaviours that are evident in some ex-prisoners will help us in finding solutions that make them ready for civil society. We can tell an ex-prisoner who has recovered fully and is ready to mingle with other individuals (Jacobs, 2014). Studying ethics in criminal justice will also help us in detecting misconduct of the system and analyze the necessary solutions to be put in place. We can tell when is the right time to act and avoid severe damages.

In conclusion, I would recommend Jacobs’ article to countries facing harsh incarcerations to help them get back on the right track and avoid severe damages in civil societies.

Reference

Jacobs, J. (2014). Punishing Society: Incarceration, Coercive Corruption, and the Liberal Polity. Criminal Justice Ethics, 33(3), 200-219.