The Effectiveness of Imprisonment in the Criminal Justice System

This essay delves into the effectiveness of imprisonment within the criminal justice system, particularly focusing on its role in deterring crime and rehabilitating offenders. The author argues that prisons, while intended to protect society and reform criminals, often fail to achieve these goals, potentially exacerbating the risk of reoffending. The essay examines the impact of imprisonment, including its effect on recidivism rates and the potential for prisons to become environments where criminal identities are reinforced. It explores the purposes of sentencing, including denunciation, punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence, and community protection, and discusses the role of legislation like the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The essay also compares imprisonment with alternative modes of punishment, analyzes the consequences of abolishing the prison system, and concludes by advocating for reforms to the current system rather than complete abolition, emphasizing the need for a balance between deterrence and rehabilitation to ensure public safety and reduce crime rates. The essay also touches upon the impact of harsh prison conditions on the offenders and the need for strict deterrent systems.

Running head: INTRODUCING CRIME AND JUSTICE
Introducing Crime and Criminal Justice
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1INTRODUCING CRIME AND JUSTICE
Topic 3: Imprisonment
Prison is ineffective because most of the people come out worse than they went in
Prisons are considered as a means of safeguarding the community and rehabilitate the
prisoners. However, there have been instances, which establish that the prisons fail to rehabilitate
people instead leads to an incline in the risk of reoffending. Every year a person is kept in prison,
it increases the probability of the person to commit another crime after they are released from the
prison. In other words, prisons do not deter crime instead; it enhances the rate of crime. In
Victoria, the sole purpose of sentencing is deterrence and the instinctive ground of deterrence
that is, the punishment of an offender shall act as prevention for the offenders, which would
reduce the occurrence of crime (Carey and Del Medico 2014). However, this instinctive ground
has ceased to become adequate to develop a sound criminal justice policy.
Effect of Imprisonment
In Victoria, prison sentences are usually imposed for three basic purposes- denunciation,
punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence and community protection. The impact of denunciation
and punishment is perceived as direct responses to the criminal behavior where denunciation
refers to the statement to the offender and the community that criminal behavior shall not be
tolerated in the community (Tubex et al. 205). Punishment refers to the infliction of a sanction
upon the offender in proportion to the harm caused by the offender, which implies that
punishment is a form of redressal against the moral imbalance caused by such criminal offender.
Rehabilitation, deterrence and community protection are perceived as mere responses to
the criminal behavior and purport to attain the objective of reduction in the commission of

2INTRODUCING CRIME AND JUSTICE
crimes in the future. Several researches have revealed that imprisonment has often resulted in
greater rate of recidivism. The possible reasons for the increase in the offending rate is that
prisons provide a learning environment for crime and strengthens the criminal identity, which
may ultimately, sever the social connections that promote lawful behaviors. Harsh prison
environment and conditions do not develop any deterrent effect instead, it encourages the
criminals to commit further crimes after they are released from the prison.
In Victoria, the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) is the primary legislative source that acts as a
guidance on sentencing in Victoria. Section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (vic) states that the
sole purpose for imposing imprisonment is to deter the offenders and other persons from
committing further crimes of similar character. In Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR
465, the effect of imprisonment has been explained by the court in relation to the concept of
proportionality. The common law principle of proportionality requires the court to impose
sentences on offenders, which are proportionate to the severity of the offending behavior. if
general deterrence takes place without considering the principle of proportionality would involve
threatening of potential future offenders which might led them to commit crimes in future
(Jewkes, Crewe and Bennett 2016).
Achievement of imprisonment compared to other modes of punishment
The sentencing of the offenders is a means to make them understand that any person with
similar impulses as that of the offenders would be imposed with severe punishment if they intend
to omit any further crimes or crimes of similar nature. Although it is a fact, that imposing
sentences would not prevent the commission of all forms of crimes but it does not defy the fact
that the fear invoked within the offenders from being subject to severe punishment would deter

3INTRODUCING CRIME AND JUSTICE
them to commit further crimes. It reduces the probability for committing further crimes as
compared to the situation where the offenders had a chance to escape after omitting a crime
without being punished or being subject to a light punishment. The imposing of sentences
safeguards the society from the violent and dangerous criminals by isolating those offenders
severing all the social ties associated with the offenders.
However, people who commit offences but are not imposed with sentences are often sent
to rehabilitation centers and correctional services. However, in the correctional homes where the
offenders comprise the youth in particular, they receive adequate counseling so that they can lead
a better life and reinstate their social ties (Cunneenrt al. 2016). There have been instances, where
the children or the young offenders do not consider the counseling services and tend to commit
crimes after they are released from the correctional homes or the rehabilitation centers’. On the
contrary, the offenders who are subject to severe punishments and are imposed with sentences,
tend to deter from committing crimes after they are released as they are not treated with
counselors, instead they are subject to harsh treatment.
Nevertheless, the Sentencing Advisory Council of Victoria (SAC) is of the opinion that
harsher sentencing is the main factor of the prison population. The brutal conditions of
incarceration are primary factor for enhancing the rate of recidivism. The treatment received by
the child offenders under the youth justice system is particularly poignant, as the protection of
the children in custody has become a raising concern in Australia (Clinard, Quinney and
Wildeman 2014). Several media reports have revealed the inhuman treatment that the 13 years
and 10 years old are subjected to in the detention centers’ in Northern Territory. The prisoners,
adult or children, are subject to high level of violent, abuse, bullying and other mental health
problems not only from the staffs of the prisons but also from the inmates as well.

4INTRODUCING CRIME AND JUSTICE
Consequences of abolishing prison system
Prisons have undergone several changes and modern day prisons have TVs in the cells.
Although the prisons have changed but the necessity of prisons persists to remain. There shall
always remain a small section of offenders who poses a threat to the society and the lives of the
people in the society owing to their criminal behavior and they shall be kept in the prisons,
separate from the law-abiding citizens of the society (Marma, De Lint and Palmer 2012).
The contention regarding abolishment of the prison system rests on several assertions. If
the fact that the prisons aims at deterring criminals from committing further crimes by punishing
them is set aside, it is perceived that short-term sentences leads to increase in the recidivism but
long term sentences lowers the rate even if it lowers the recidivism rate by a fewer percent. It can
be said, here that longer sentences and not abolishment of prisons altogether, is likely to provide
the offenders with the opportunity to rehabilitate.
There is a necessity of punishing criminals for their criminal behavior in the modern day
society because of the high crime rates in the society. Some people would differ and assert that
the prison system is better if abolished as the system is flawed inherently. Some are of the
opinion that the crime rates would not come down even if the prison system were abolished,
there would not be any change in the crime rates whatsoever. Further, the prison system causes
the taxpayers to pay more as they are the ones who pays for the prison system and gets nothing
in return. Another argument in favor of abolishing the prison system would be that it is
illusionary and that labels are placed on people and severs the social ties of the offenders with
the rest of the population (Marma, De Lint and Palmer 2012).

5INTRODUCING CRIME AND JUSTICE
However, the arguments against the abolishment of the prison system states that prisons
should be reformed instead of being abolished otherwise one would not want to see an offender
who committed murder to walk down the street and it would also create chaos. Further, it would
also be dangerous for the low abiding citizens as the offender may attack the citizen and commit
crimes of similar nature, which gives rise to another significant consequence of abolishing the
prison system (Marma, De Lint and Palmer 2012). In other words, the prisoners would commit
further crimes of similar nature as they would not have the fear of severe deterrence for
committing such crimes. The prisoners would join hands with the criminals with a view to
reinstate their power and commit offences and crimes within the society.
There are other social issues existing within the community and the abolishment of the
prison system would add up to such issues and eventually lead to an increase in the crime rate of
the country (Marma, De Lint and Palmer 2012). The prisons should be reformed instead of
abolishing the prison system as if the prisons are abolished; it is hard to even imagine that an
offender commits a murder without the fear that he would have to go to prison. They would not
think twice before committing any offence, as there would not be any consequence for any
criminal action. There would not be any rules or legal deterrence that would prevent an
individual from committing any offence.
From the above discussion, it can be inferred that although it is nice to dwell in a society
that does not have any prisons, but the growing crime rates in the country cannot be deterred by
providing the prisoners with counseling services or by placing the young offenders in the
correctional homes. There is a need for strict deterrent system that would ensure that the
offenders are deterred from committing further crimes, thus, safeguarding the society from
violators of the law of the country.

6INTRODUCING CRIME AND JUSTICE
Reference List
Carey, L.B. and Del Medico, L., 2014. Correctional services and prison chaplaincy in Australia:
an exploratory study. Journal of religion and health, 53(6), pp.1786-1799.
Clinard, M.R., Quinney, R. and Wildeman, J., 2014. Criminal behavior systems: A typology.
Routledge.
Cunneen, C., Baldry, E., Brown, D., Brown, M., Schwartz, M. and Steel, A., 2016. Penal culture
and hyperincarceration: the revival of the prison. Routledge.
Cunneen, C., Baldry, E., Brown, D., Brown, M., Schwartz, M. and Steel, A., 2016. Penal culture
and hyperincarceration: the revival of the prison. Routledge.
Marma, M., De Lint, W. and Palmer, D., 2012. Crime and justice: a guide to criminology.
Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia.
Gordon, H., Kelty, S.F. and Julian, R., 2015. An Evaluation of the Level of Service/Case
Management Inventory in an Australian Community Corrections Environment. Psychiatry,
Psychology and Law, 22(2), pp.247-258.
Jewkes, Y., Crewe, B. and Bennett, J. eds., 2016. Handbook on prisons. Routledge.
Tubex, H., Brown, D., Freiberg, A., Gelb, K. and Sarre, R., 2015. Penal diversity within
Australia. Punishment & Society, 17(3), pp.345-373.
Van Ness, D.W. and Strong, K.H., 2014. Restoring justice: An introduction to restorative justice.
Routledge.
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

7INTRODUCING CRIME AND JUSTICE