Prison Overcrowding Policy Proposal

Introduction

Across the globe, prison overcrowding poses as one of the most vital contributing factors that results into poor prison conditions. In line with this, it also poses as the biggest problem that faces various prison systems in England and Wales and owing to this, it has severe consequences, which can be life threatening and also preventing prisons from functioning properly (Devlin & Turney, 1999). This report purposes to present a policy proposal, which addresses the penal issue of overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales. In this regard, it will start by providing the outline of the penal issue (overcrowding prison in England and Wales) and provide a clear reason as to why the issue needs to be addressed. Following this, the report will propose a change to current practice/policy/legislation, therefore explaining why the intervention would be effective and also providing the impact it would have on prisons in England and Wales. Thirdly, this report will provide the potential issues that may emerge in the implementation of the proposal and following this, it will provide how the success of the implementation would be monitored. Finally, this report will provide a definitive conclusion that summarizes its content.

Outline of penal issue

The penal issue that will be the primary focus of this report will be overcrowding prison in Wales and England. Significantly, three quarter of prisons, based in England and Wales are noted to be overcrowded, and this prompts warning for various campaigners that the constant overpopulation, coupled with staff shortage have resulted into toxicity within the penal system (Duff & Garland, 1994). Approximately 75 per cent of prisons in England and Wales are housing more prisoners than their usable (81 of 120 prisons, based in England and Wales are notably overcrowded). As clearly stated that most of the jails are breaching the limit, it is evident that some are housing more than 50% over the population level that is recommended. The Prison Reform Trust discovered that the rate of overcrowding in England and Wales is twice higher than Germany and three times the rate in Italy and Spain (Parliament, uk., 2019). For example, in 2017, the prisons admitted 140,000 inmates in prisons in England and Wales. The analysis of the trust provides a suggestion that there are approximately 250 admissions per 100,000 people based in Wales and England each year and clearly, this is described as an addiction to imprisonment, which is facilitated by an overuse of the instances of short sentences, as well as growing utilization of longer terms and also botched probation reforms. It is significant to note that the population in prisons in Wales and England is currently 70 per cent higher as compared to three decades ago (Parliament, uk., 2019).

The population in prisons in England and Wales has had an upward trend (shown in the figure 1 below). It is evident that that the upward trend rose sharply towards the end of the year 2011 (from 85,000-88,000 inmates) and this was noted to be due to cases requiring remanding, as well as sentencing of individuals alleged to have gotten themselves involved in the August 2011 riots, which happened in England.

The above figure indicate the prison population in England and Wales from June, 1985 to December 2014, and projections to June 2020 (Yearly intervals to June 2010, and thus, monthly intervals thereafter)

The above figure 2 shows that by February 2015, it is evident that 71 prisons in England and Wales were overcrowded as a proportion of the normal accommodation. Each dot is a representation of an establishment.

It is often assumed that the increasing trend in overpopulation in prisons in England and Wales is due to direct consequence associated with increasing rate of criminal activity in the two regions but this is often not the case. Some of the causes of harm are as provided as follows. First, England and Wales experiences obstacles and delays whilst accessing justice and this results into overcrowding in prisons (Easton & Piper, 2005). Secondly, there is increased pre-trial detention. Clearly, despite the international law provisions that restrict pre-trial detentions to a few prescribed circumstances, it is evident that this issue is still endemic in England and Wales. Thirdly, there are punitive criminal justice policies, which have resulted into the increasing rate of overcrowding in England and Wales. Moreover, in England and Wales, courts are much likely to sentence criminals to imprisonment whilst imposing long term sentences as compared to how they did decades ago (Easton, 2011). Fourthly, there are drug control policies in England and Wales, whereby, regardless of whether the offences are major or minor, criminals are detained for years without courts having to consider any resolution of their detention status. Fifthly, there is inappropriate use of imprisonment in England and Wales. For instance, individuals with mental illnesses that have not committed any offence are imprisoned, owing to lack of appropriate mental health facilities. Finally, there is inadequate utilization of various alternatives to imprisonment, which leads to increased overcrowding in prisons (Foucault, 1977).

As a consequence, to overcrowding in prisons in Wales and England, it is clear that prisoners lack even the minimum amount of space required and quite a number of prisoners spend close to 24 hours (at times 24 hours) in cramped and also overcrowded accommodation. Notably, in some penal systems, it is evident that the rate of overcrowding may be too much acute, to an extent that prisoners are required or even forced to sleep in shifts, shared beds, sleep on each other, or have to tie themselves to window bars, in order for them to be able to sleep while standing (Foucault, 1977). It is also worth noting that overcrowding in the prisons impact on the quality of nutrition, prisoner activity, sanitation, care, as well as health services that ought to be given to prisoners. Moreover, it impacts on the mental, as well as physical well-being of the inmates and thus, generates prisoner violence and tension.

Proposed change to current practice/policy/legislation

This section outlines a suggested policy change to address the issue of overcrowding prison in Wales and England. In order to do this, there are a number of areas that will be highlighted. First, sentencing practice has been noted to require a review in England and Wales. When implementing rules, it is vital to consider a proper, and also a significant balance between the rights of offenders, victims’ rights, as well as a concern to the society, especially on public safety and also crime prevention. In a bid to providing greater flexibility, and consistency with the gravity, as well as nature of the offence, it is significant to take note of the offender’s background and also prioritize society protection, thus aiding in the avoidance of unnecessary imprisonment, which leads to overcrowding in such facilities (Garland, 2001). In this regard, it is recommendable that the criminal justice system in England and Wales ought to look into various recommendations that can assist in reducing the rate of overcrowding in prisons in Wales and England. Significant to note, is the fact that the criminal justice system should purpose to reform their set sentencing policies, therefore ensuring consistency, and avoiding unnecessary plus excessive imprisonment (Harding, 1997). Based on the norms bestowed in the prevention of crime, as well as the criminal justice system, it is evident that the sentencing reform components that aim towards reducing the population in prisons in England and Wales whilst ensuring fairness in terms of sentencing include the following reform: England and Wales’ criminal justice system should consider decriminalization and depenalization as the most suitable way of reducing the increased rate of overcrowding in prisons. In this regard, decriminalization refers to the removal of a misconduct from the criminal law sphere and as such, it may include imposition of various sanctions of varied administrative kinds or abolition of all forms of sanctions. Notably, non-criminal laws may as such regulate the misconduct that is then bound to be decriminalized. On the other hand, depenalization refers to a relaxation of a given penal sanction, after being exacted by the law for a given offence or even offences (Harding, 1997).

In putting into consideration, this proposed reform to the England justice system, some factors are put in light such as social undesirable behavior, as well as petty offences. Notably, one of the vital starting point is to consider the extent to which the criminal law in England and Wales is being used as a way of enhancing social control. It is significant to note that not all socially misconducts should be subjected to criminal law, owing to the opinion that the response to most misconducts may better be made to fall within the social/ healthcare policies scope, instead of the criminal justice (Scott & Codd, 2010). For instance, in most societies, vagrancy has significantly been decriminalized wholly or partly, and this has resulted into reduced rates of imprisonment, therefore avoidance of overcrowding in prisons. In line with this, it is better off if most petty misconduct offences can be decriminalized and therefore turned into administrative infractions that could be punishable by payment of a given fine.

A good example to the criminal justice system in England and Wales is non-payment of fines, as well as debt imprisonment. It is significant to note that fine defaulters are some of the prisoners exacerbating overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales amongst facilitating other adverse consequences. In this regard, it is worth noting that best practice would indicate that a fine defaulter ought not to be automatically imprisoned. This is based on the opinion that consideration need to be given whilst putting into consideration other non-custodial alternatives that deal with defaulters, and this should be implemented, while taking into account, particular circumstances of the defaulters (Scott, 2008). Such alternatives could include actions such as providing them with various remunerated work, imposed on them by the court, such that payment of their fines can be derived from the proceeds of their labor. However, it is evident that in England and Wales, individuals who fail to pay their debts are often imprisoned.

With fault defaulters, it is evident that proportionate measures in such circumstance would imply that the offenders are imposed of non-custodial measures, whilst taking into account the financial circumstances of the individual and also putting into consideration, the fact that imprisonment provides no constructive contribution towards making payments of such debts (Scott, 2008). It is evident that on the contrary, imprisonment has a likelihood of implying that the individuals that have been imprisoned lose their employment, as well as the their chances of having employing after their release has been effected and this results into their family’s further impoverishment. Overall, it is significant to take note of the fact that if England and Wales purposes to review and re-categorize their policy measures, in terms of decriminalization and depenalization, the courts would then be able to impose non-custodial sanctions, as well as measures or short prison terms for various offences. Clearly, re-categorization and depenalization of various offences could have a secondary, yet importance impact in enabling such kind of cases to be tried only at lower courts, thus speeding up the entire trial process and also allowing the use of bail more frequently. Consequentially, the issue of overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales will be reduced (Shefer and Liebling, 2008).

Any potential issues in implementation

This section outlines and mitigates against possible issues that could arise from the policy proposed within section two of this report. The first potential issue arises from the reduction in incarceration and the impact this can have on is undermining of the reform by the England criminal justice system. It is significant to take note of the fact that reviewing and also re-categorizing offences in England and Wales would be aligned by one of the most fundamental principles bestowed in sentencing. As aforementioned in the previous section, this report would recommend decriminalization and depenalization of criminals in proportion to the seriousness of their crimes (Shefer and Liebling, 2008). However, it is significant to note that the implementation of this reform would result into various controversies, as precisely, it is worth noting that the aforementioned reform may be undermined by the criminal justice system in England and Wales, especially when the legislation has not been re-evaluated effectively in light of various changing economic, as well as social realities. Moreover, the criminal justice system may also undermine it when it does not have a changed perception regarding the concept of “seriousness” of a particular offence. It is evident that re-evaluation and re-categorization of various offences in England and Wales would possibly include cases related to petty theft, case of public order offences (in an instance when they have not been decriminalized), small-scale fraud, as well as other minor economic offences amongst others. Evidently, it is expected that the criminal justice system would undermine the whole idea (Sim, 2009). However, is priority measures are taken, with regards to the benefits that the reform would bring, it would easily be implemented and the issue of overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales would significantly be reduced.

Moreover, it is worth noting that another issue that may hinder the implementation of the reform is public rejection of it, due to recidivism. Recidivism refers to the behavior of a person repeating a misconduct, even when they have already been subjected to the negative consequences in connection with their actions, or rather, have been thoroughly trained to be able to extinguish from that misconduct. It is significant to note that the public often assume that once an individual is a criminal, the person will forever engage in crime, and not even decriminalization or depenalization can stop the person from engaging in crime (Sim, 2009). In this regard, it is evident that most people who have fallen victims of a crime done by an offender that has been imprisoned would not be party to the reform of decriminalization or depenalization and whilst bringing in a public concern, it is evident that a majority of individuals would decline to the proposal. In addition, it is significant to also note that the prison management staff would take long to adopt this reform even when it will have been implemented, owing to the fact that they have gotten used to the behavior of putting people in custody even before trial. In this regard, it will take them a lot of time to adjust to the new protocol. Overall, it is worth noting that however much these issues may bring forth challenges, they are manageable and cannot prevent the implementation of the reform (Solomon & Murphy, 2000).

How will you monitor the change?

As with any policy change, there is a need to demonstrate success. This section outlines the ways in which success will be monitored and demonstrated. This includes statistics and outcomes based on qualitative research that conducted on prisoners and prison management staff in England and Wales (Stern, 1993). Significant to note, is the fact that qualitative research will be preferred to any other research method, owing to the following reasons. First, it provides the researcher with independence, owing to the fact that it focuses much on subtleties on the data that is collected and less on the metrics involved. Second, it allows a great freedom of expression to the participants. In this regard, the participant feels much free in providing authentic answers or responses, as it is not influenced by any disrupting group (Tetnowski & Damico, 2001). Third, it is evident that the research framework in qualitative research is based on data availability that consequently makes the process of the research much fluid. However, in an instance where the researcher may feel that the data collected does not provide the information required, he could easily change the gears possibly and try collecting data from other sources. Fourth, the data collected in this form of research is entirely based on the opinion and perception of the participants and as such, the data is dependent of the observations, as well as personal experiences of the participants (Tetnowski & Damico, 2001).

With qualitative research, having the participants as prisoners and the staff in the prison, the researcher will determine the success of this reform by visiting the prison departments and conducting face-to-face research with the participants, in order to prove whether the policy will have worked or not. The consent of the participants will be acquired, prior to engaging in the study, to ensure that the ethics of the study have been met. Notably, the responses of the participants will then be analyzed and published on the media, in order to get public perception and that of the state, on the reform to enforce decriminalization and depenalization of criminals in England and Wales, in order to reduce the rate of overcrowding in prisons (Walker and Padfield, 1996). The success of this reform would be significant and this would be presented in statistics. For instance, there will be need to present the statistics of the reoffending rates, especially of the individuals that had been imprisoned because of petty cases such as theft, yet alternatives have been used such as providing them with various remunerated work. Moreover, statistics would as well be needed based on public satisfaction on the reform of decriminalization and depenalization of criminals. This will significantly ascertain whether the reform has been accepted by the general public. Finally, statistics would also be needed from the criminal justice system regarding the reform, as this will aid in determining whether it can be adopted for a long time in England and Wales, thus preventing or reducing overcrowding in prisons (Walker and Padfield, 1996).

Conclusion

Based on the above provision, it is evident that indeed, prison overcrowding poses as one of the most vital contributing factors that results into poor prison conditions. It also poses as the biggest problem that faces various prison systems in England and Wales and owing to this, it has severe consequences, which can be life threatening and also preventing prisons from functioning properly. This report notes that for the past years, overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales has experiences an upward trend and as such, there is need for a reform, which could prevent the increase in the situation. This report presents a reform of decriminalization and depenalization of criminals, based on the seriousness of their offences. However, it is clear that this reform can be undermined by the public, the staff in the prisons or the criminal judicial system, based on several factors. However, it is evident that the advantages of this reform outweigh its disadvantages that it may have on prisons in England and Wales. Overall, it is clear that in order to determine the success of the reform, there will be need to conduct a qualitative research on the staff and prisoners in England and Wales. The outcomes of the research are best published on the media, in order to reach the public and to enhance general acceptability.

Reference

Ashworth, A. (2010) Sentencing and Criminal Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bottoms, A. Rex, S. & Robinson, G. (eds) (2004) Alternatives to Prison: options for an insecure society Cullompton: Willan

Bryans, S, and Jones, R (2001) Prisons and the Prisoner: an introduction to the work of Her Majesty's Prison Service. London : HM Stationery Office, 2001

Cavadino, M. & Dignan, J. (2006) Penal Systems: a comparative approach. London: Sage

Cavadino, M. & Dignan, J. (2007) The Penal System: an introduction (4th ed) London: Sage

Coyle, A. (2005) Understanding Prisons: key issues in policy and practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press

Devlin, A. & Turney, B. (1999) Going Straight: after crime and punishment. Winchester: Waterside

Duff, A. & Garland, D. (Eds) (1994) A Reader on Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Easton, S. & Piper, C. (2005) Sentencing and Punishment: the quest for justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Easton, S. (2011) Prisoners’ Rights: principles and practice. Abingdon: Routledge

Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison. London: Penguin

Garland, D. (ed) (2001) Mass Imprisonment: Social Causes and Consequences. London: Sage

Harding, R.W. (1997) Private Prisons and Public Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press

Scott, D. & Codd, H. (2010). Controversial Issues in Prisons. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill

Scott, D. (2008) Penology. London: Sage

Shefer, G., Liebling, A. (2008) Prison privatization: In search of a business-like atmosphere.. Criminology and Criminal Justice 2008 8: 261

Sim, J. (2009) Punishment and Prisons: power and the carceral state. London: Sage

Solomon, R.C. & Murphy, M.C. (Eds) (2000) What is Justice? Classic and contemporary readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Stern, V (1993). Bricks of Shame: Britain's prisons. London : Penguin.

Tetnowski, J. A., & Damico, J. S. (2001). A demonstration of the advantages of qualitative methodologies in stuttering research. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26(1), 17-42.

Walker, N., Padfield, N. (1996) Sentencing: Theory, Law and Practice. London: Butterworths