human rights’ and in many cases ‘constitutes torture under international law and cruel and unusual punishment under the US Constitution’.27 It is estimated that up to 80,000 prisoners are currently living under these conditions.
Criminologists warn of ‘the serious psychological harm done to prisoners, and [the] difficulties in coping with the world outside when released, across all security levels and types of institutions’.28 Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations Committee Against Torture have all condemned the US prison system for its inhumane practices. These include the incarceration of children in adult prisons, abuse of the mentally ill and disabled, the prevalence of rape culture, the shackling of female inmates during childbirth, and the use of electric shocks as a means of controlling prisoners.29 As Gendreau writes, ‘if prison psychologically destroys the inhabitants, then their adjustment to society upon release can only be negative, with one likely consequence being a return to crime’.30
The deterrent effect of imposing the ‘double price’ on lawbreakers is not only overstated but a significant part of the problem. Arguments in its favour are riddled with holes, providing cover for many inhumane, unjust and unjustifiable practices. This cover is strengthened by our instinctive attachment to individual responsibility and the notion of retribution, which permeate the whole practice of punishment, shaping popular attitudes and making it far easier to ignore the grave deficiencies of outmoded penal systems.
Most of us anticipate the likely consequences of our actions, so in some contexts the threat of punishment may dissuade us from a course of action we might otherwise undertake. However, according to recent research, it is primarily the likelihood of getting caught – not the severity of punishment that awaits us – that deters us from doing what we otherwise would do.31 Once we have detained people who pose a serious threat to society, their suffering (beyond that caused by the removal of their liberty) does not serve the cause of justice and rarely increases the safety of society. In fact, it often makes society more dangerous.
If the justice system were rational, the social impact of harming lawbreakers would not be taken for granted; just like the effectiveness of a new drug, it would be something to be established empirically. The burden of proof would always be on those in favour of inflicting harm to demonstrate its value, and, even then, the benefits to society would have to be balanced against the fundamental right of the individual not to be harmed. Given the humane and effective alternatives to wilfully inflicting suffering on lawbreakers, the logic of deterrence is often hard to justify.
Beyond punishment
One of the most humane prisons in the world is situated on the island of Bastøy in Norway.32 Every inmate in this open prison is offered high-quality education and training programmes to develop a variety of skills. Prisoners live communally in comfortable homes, six men to a house. Each man has his own room but shares the kitchen and other facilities with the other inmates. A meal a day is provided for the inmates; any other food must be bought from the local supermarket and prepared by the prisoners themselves who receive an allowance of £70 a month and earn roughly £6 a day on a variety of jobs which include growing food, looking after horses, repairing bicycles, doing woodwork, and engaging in different forms of maintenance on the island.
Dotted around Bastøy is a church, a school and a library. In their free time, inmates have the opportunity to engage in leisure activities such as horse riding, fishing and tennis. All the guards are highly qualified, having received three years’ training for their post (compared to only six weeks in the UK), and function more like social workers than prison officers. Arne Kvernvik Nilsen, who was in charge of the prison for the five years leading up to 2013, describes his philosophy: ‘I give respect to the prisoners who come here and they respond by respecting themselves, each other and this community.’ Nilsen believes that, ‘We have to respect people’s need for revenge, but not use that as a foundation for how we run our prisons. [. . .] Should I be in charge of adding more problems to the prisoner on behalf of the state, making you an even worse threat to larger society because I have treated you badly while you are in my care?’33 The island houses perpetrators of serious crimes including murder and rape, yet, remarkably, it has the lowest reoffending rates in Europe: 16 per cent compared with a European average of about 70 per cent. And it’s one of the cheapest prisons to run in Norway.
Not all Norwegian prisons are as open and comfortable as Bastøy but they all follow a similar philosophy based on the belief that the only punishment the state should inflict is the loss of liberty. The suffering of prisoners is intentionally minimised. There is no death penalty and no life sentencing. The aim is to heal, not harm. And, whatever critics of this philosophy might say, it produces results. Across Norway, reoffending rates may be higher than for Bastøy, but they are still the lowest in Europe at 30 per cent. Across Scandinavia, penal policy is largely left to the experts. Criminologists design policy based on the evidence, and the public have largely been happy to let them do so. Along with Holland and Japan, Norway is a guiding light in the prison sector but there are campaigns in many countries to make prisons more humane.
One of the most effective strategies to stop criminals reoffending has been to provide inmates with the opportunity to study and earn formal qualifications. Where punishment has failed, education is succeeding. A meta-study by the RAND Corporation (sponsored by the US Bureau of Justice Assistance) found that, on average, inmates who participated in correctional education programmes were 43 per cent less likely to reoffend.34 The former warden of Louisiana’s biggest prison has cited figures showing that education is ‘one of the few things that work’ to keep prisoners from reoffending. At the notorious Folsom State Prison in California, reoffending rates were 55 per cent in the general population but zero for prisoners who had studied for a degree.35 A 2004 study by the University of California, Los Angeles, found that ‘Correctional education is almost twice as cost effective as incarceration’ at reducing crime.36
Another forward-thinking approach to crime and rehabilitation is ‘restorative justice’. It can take various forms, but ideally it brings together victim and perpetrator to engage in a face-to-face, mediated discussion about the crime that took place. Although it can be difficult, many victims of crime have ultimately reported feeling empowered by the process, which is entered into voluntarily. Victims are given the opportunity to explain how the crime has affected their lives, to express their feelings, and ask the questions that haunt them. Offenders have the opportunity to describe the circumstances of the crime and how they have been affected by it. They also have the opportunity to apologise for what they have done and compensate the victim in some way, ranging from community service to financial reparation. Restorative justice has produced astounding results. Numerous studies demonstrate its financial, psychological and crime-reducing value. A seven-year government-funded UK study found that, with serious offences, it reduced reoffending rates by 27 per cent, ‘leading to £9 savings for every £1 spent’.37 It also found that the majority of victims chose to participate in face-to-face meetings when given the opportunity by a trained facilitator, and that 85 per cent reported they were satisfied with the process. In 2007, a meta-study of restorative justice research projects (spanning nineteen years and covering all studies written in English) compiled by criminologists Lawrence W. Sherman and Heather Strang also found clear, positive results.38 These include reduced reoffending rates, a reduction of victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms, more satisfaction for both victims and offenders than with court justice, a reduced desire for victims to exact violent revenge against their offenders, and significantly reduced costs.
One of the most successful prison projects in the US is the Resolve to Stop the Violence Project (RSVP) introduced in 1997 by the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Department. The programme began in a sixty-two-bed jail unit and involved all prisoners. Within the unit itself there were no locked doors. A large central activity area was surrounded by smaller classrooms and meeting rooms. For twelve hours a day, six days a week, it delivered an intensive schedule of activity including art, creative writing, group discussion,
