Reform of the penal system: fighting crime beyond prisons

As children, we are always told not to commit crimes because if we do, we might go to prison. Being young and impressionable, it's probably safe to say that most children are pretty terrified of this possibility. Therefore, the idea of ​​prison can be an effective deterrent in most cases. However, the idea of ​​Santa Claus also acts as an effective illusion of magic in the minds of most children. As adults, we need to look at these concepts with much more caution and thought. Is the prison system really an effective deterrent for adults or is there something else that helps maintain a certain level of law and order?

Recently, armed gangs have wrested control from authorities in cities such as Port-au-Prince in Haiti, while drug gangs have at times dismantled law enforcement in countries such as Ecuador. The result is chaotic scenes of violence and bloodshed that make one wonder what has happened to effective public order in these areas. Some may argue that the penal system is not strong enough and people can do whatever they want without fear of consequences, while others say that sociopolitical corruption is the reason for such fierce backlash from lawless leaders. In these circumstances, no two cases are alike, making it difficult to apply universal principles with absolute certainty. Even so, it is not surprising that the lowest crime rates in the world are in countries with strong economies.

This brings me to the question: If a country with a relatively high crime rate experiences a sudden economic boom and therefore a lot of new money is being invested in the country, should they invest in a comprehensive prison system to get the crime rate under control? At first glance, this might seem like an effective way to get criminals off the streets and restore a higher level of law and order. Perhaps they could even impose long prison sentences with a high level of security to ensure that these offenders do not get out into the public eye. However, I would urge everyone to look beyond face value and consider the social and financial impact of locking up an already vulnerable segment of the population in a concrete, negative prison facility.

Of course, I do not believe that perpetrators of serious crimes such as murder or rape should be allowed to walk the streets freely. However, I do propose a different view of how to deal with less serious but still concerning crimes such as theft, property damage, or even assault. Except for the extreme frequency of these less serious crimes, I would not consider the perpetrators to pose much of a threat to the average citizen. In such cases, would it not be better to seek some form of constructive community reform rather than condemning people with a label and overalls that mark them as inferior members of society?

If we first look at the countries with the strictest laws and punishments, we see signs of a harsh approach to maintaining social order. Singapore is a good example of this. In Singapore, there are a wide variety of public offenses, from eating on public transport to smoking in public, that are punishable by a large fine. Even an honest act like feeding pigeons is prohibited there. The threat of these large fines seems to maintain public cleanliness and social order. In addition, there are severe punishments, such as the death penalty, in cases of armed robbery, murder, or drug trafficking. Although this seems to work, one could argue that the public lives in some kind of fear or that civil liberties are restricted.

Furthermore, a country like New Zealand, which is often considered one of the countries with the most lenient approaches to enforcing its laws, also has a low crime rate. Therefore, we can see the opposite effect as in Singapore. Instead of living in fear of breaking the law, they respect the leniency they are given and are able to enjoy greater civil liberties on top of that. Of course, we can never really be sure how evenly these countries report or log crimes, but there is a similarity in both cases. They both value the idea of ​​reform. Even a strict country like Singapore applies reform strategies to less serious crimes like drug abuse rather than imposing long prison sentences.

Regardless of whether the laws are harsh or lenient, I would argue that the focus should be on a method of reforming offenders that does not involve long prison sentences, provided they pose no threat to the community. In the UK, for example, the current recidivism rate is around 25%, meaning that a quarter of all offenders have been failed by the system. Some studies suggest that in the UK, 75% of ex-prisoners reoffend within 9 years of their release. If prison truly was a deterrent, this number would be much lower. If prison truly was a place that focused on changing people for the better, this number would be much lower. If prison truly worked, this number would be much lower.

If we are to judge a prison system on whether it keeps crime rates down and delivers justice to victims and offenders, we must recognise the importance of reforming criminals. If you look at the recidivism figures in the UK, it is pretty clear that the UK prison system is broken. I am not sure there is a clear and simple solution to fix the problem. However, I would suggest that providing more appropriate plans and programmes for offenders of non-serious crimes to give them a chance of reform would be a good place to start to address this problem.