Just alternatives — part I
| DOI | 10.1177/000486908601900202 |
| Author | Janet Chan,George Zdenkowski |
| Published date | 01 June 1986 |
| Date | 01 June 1986 |
AUST &NZ
JOURNAL
OF CRIMINOLOGY (June 1986) 19 (67-90)
JUST ALTERNATIVES -PART I
Trends and Issues in the Deinstitutionalization of Punishment!
Janet Chan" and George Zdenkowski"
67
1. Introduction
Over the last two decades, it has become popular in many countries to talk of
decarceration, or a general move away from the use of prisons to punish criminal
offenders. The movement, which appears under various labels such as
"deinstitutionalisation","decarceration","community corrections", and
"diversion", has been met with great enthusiasm and has resulted in some drastic
changes in correctional policies (see Scull, 1984; Greenberg, 1975).
There are a number of ways in which decarceration has been justified.
Cost: Prisons are expensive. In Australia, the cost of keeping a person in prison is
estimated to be $26,000 to $28,000 a year, and the cost of building new prisons
about $100,000 per cell (Sydney Morning Herald 28 May 1985). Estimates are even
higher in some American States (Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1982:22)and
in Canada (Solicitor General of Canada, 1984:56). It is argued that less expensive
forms of punishment should be introduced to take the place of imprisonment
wherever possible.
Effectiveness: Prisons do not rehabilitate offenders (Martinson, 1974; Brody, 1976;
Biles, 1983; but see Walker, 1980:55). Most prisoners experience high levels of
anxiety and alienation in prison; they develop a deep fear and resentment of
authority (Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1982).There isalso no evidence that
imprisonment is a more effective deterrent than other sanctions for most crimes and
for most people. In particular, doubling the length of sentence does not necessarily
double the deterrent effect (ibid; see Blumstein et al, 1978; Zimring and Hawkins,
1973 for methodological difficulties of deterrence research). Sentencing large
numbers of offenders to prison does not necessarily reduce the rate of reported
crime (Biles, 1982). There is also a practical limit to which society can lock up
criminals to incapacitate them:
In 1978 the [United States] National Academy of Sciences estimated that in order to achieve a ten
percent reduction in crime, California would have to increase its prison population by 157 percent; New
York by 263 percent; and Massachusetts by more than 310per cent. In NewYork alone this would entail
imprisoning close to 100,000 people, more than a quarter of the current national prisoner total. Another
study, done by the American Justice Institute, estimates that Ohio could achieve a similar reduction in
crime, but only with a 500 percent increase in imprisonment. Policies that would result in such a scale
of imprisonment would generally be the result of sending every convicted felon - including shoplifters,
petty thieves and all first-time offenders - to prison for terms averaging five years. (Edna McConnell
Clark Foundation, 1982: 15-17)
*BSc, MA (Toronto), PhD candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney.
+BA, LLB (Sydney), Commissioner, Australian Law Reform Commission
..
68 JCHAN &GZDENKOWSKI (1986) 19 ANZJ Crim
Humanitarianism: Imprisonment is an inhumane form of punishment. Prison
conditions are usually deplorable, degrading and depressing. Overcrowding
problems are rampant in many jurisdictions (Sydney Morning Herald 28 May 1985;
The
Age
19 and 31 July 1984; Weatherburn, 1986; The Economist 6 April 1985;
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1982). Violence and escapes are inevitable
outcomes of such oppressive institutions (Nagle Report, 1978). Yet the record of
prison reform is not encouraging (Zdenkowski and Brown, 1982; Vinson, 1982).
Many prisoners, including petty offenders, fine defaulters, drunkenness offenders
and mentally disordered offenders should not be kept in prison at all (Brittan,
1984).
The unspoken assumptions behind these justifications that
"community-based" sanctions are less costly, more effective and more humane -
are seldom articulated and less often critically evaluated. Nevertheless, the case for
decarceration appears so strong that almost every government commission, task
force and department concerned with sentencing and penal policy in Australia has
advocated the principle of using imprisonment as a last resort (see, for example,
Australian Law Reform Commission, 1980; Nagle Report, 1978; Victoria,
Department of Corrections, 1984;NSW Department of Corrective Services, 1983).
The use of alternatives to imprisonment, the so-called "non-custodial options", is
enthusiastically supported (for example, Neilson Associates Report, 1983; NSW
Women in Prison Task Force, 1985), although there have been occasional
references to the difficulty of "selling" such options to the general public (Nagle
Report, 1978). The practice of jailing fine defaulters is roundly condemned (for
example, Brown, 1984; Dixon Report, 1981;Mitchell Report, 1973). The eventual
abolition of prisons, though not attainable in the immediate future, is considered by
some to be an important goal, since "prisons are ultimately unnecessary"
(Australian Institute of Criminology, 1976:1).
Analysts of decarceration policy have tended not to take the standard
justifications (costs, effectiveness and humanity) at face value. Several types of
explanations have been put forward to account for the popularity of decarceration:
Economic Structural Theory
The form of punishment is primarily determined by society's economic structure
(Scull, 1984; Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939). Thus, decarceration is feasible as a
public policy when welfare capitalism has provided a means of subsistence for its
marginal population (including criminals) through its social welfare programmes. It
also becomes necessary as governments are overextending themselves in terms of
expenditure to socialize production. Thus, decarceration is functional to capitalist
welfare states during times of fiscal crises.
Ideological Theory
Decarceration rises to prominence at precisely the same time as the decline of the
rehabilitative ideal. The "nothing works" mentality (Martinson, 1974) is reinforced
by the growing importance of the labelling perspective in deviance theory and the
advocacy of "radical non-intervention" (Schur, 1973). At the same time, the idea
of returning to the "community" becomes appealing as disillusionment about the
effectiveness of government bureaucracies grows (Cohen, 1979a).
To continue reading
Request your trial