Effect of Incarceration

Name

Institution

Incarceration has for long been on of the most widely accepted form of punishment for criminal offenders. Incarceration serves as a tool for corrective purposes where criminal or offender are locked up and rehabilitated and then released to rejoin the rest of the society once they have served their term. Other than hand, experts support it for its crime deterrence ability. Knowledge the committing a crime will lead to incarnation dissuades citizens from engaging in the crime or activities associated with crime. This way, incarceration, helps deter crime. In addition to deterrence, incarceration has numerous other effects especially to the incarcerated populations. Staying locked up or confined in one location for a long period of time sometimes over ten years can numerous effect on the incarcerating individuals. Many prisoners who are released from prison, in addition to rehabilitation report a range of effects. A large number of the effects are negative. This makes incarceration a double edged sword wielding both negative and positive effects, and although it is practice for its positive effect such as deterring crime and locking criminal away to protect the society, there are also negative effects, which are suffered mostly by the incarcerated population.

Incarceration has the ability to reduce crime rate mostly through deterrence and incapacitation. Deterrence means discouraging the criminal minded individual of the society from participating in crime, while incapacitation involves locking away criminal so that they do not commit more crimes. As Abrahams (2010) asserts long prison sentences have the ability to reduce incidences of crime not only by deterring potential criminal from engaging in crime, but also ensuring that criminal are not left to walk around and commit more crimes. According to Pattillo, Weiman, & Western, (2004) both deterrence and incapacitation work in different ways to reduce crime. However, it is difficult to distinguish between the effects of the two since they function together. When short term imprisonment fails to deter crime, crime rate can often be reduced by increasing the length of the imprisonment to ensure that criminal spend most of their time behind bars where they are not able to commit new crimes. Abrams (2011) through a study of gun laws and add-ons to these laws reported that long jail term were effective in reducing gun related crime where deterrence was not realizable. This is because the incarceration locked away most of the criminal who were prone to robbing using guns. The effect of add-ons to gun laws has been appreciated by many states, and most of them have adopted various add-ons to ensure lengthy lock away of convicted criminals. Adams (2011) adds that add-ons that have effects that are short term in nature toward gun laws are responsible for deterrence. Certainly, depending on the nature and length or prison sentence, it is possible to achieve reduced rate of crime through the outcomes of both deterrence and incapacitation.

The reduction in the rate of crime is a benefit the society reaps form locking away criminals and discouraging those with ill intent in their midst from participating in crime. On the other hand, the incarcerated individuals undergo several changes that may affect them psychologically. Some of the changes may be reversible some may remain permanent. The institutionalized individuals undergo the psychological changes as a way of copying with the prison environment (Haney, 2001). This because the prison environment is new to them (especially for the first time convicts), and they have to adjust to it including having to live in a confined space for along period of time.

The first psychological impact is dependency on correctional institutions contingencies as well as infrastructures. Although rare, prisoners develop dependence on the institutional structure since being locked away and deny autonomy. They change to a level where they totally depend on the correctional institutions to make decision for them. When they are released, they have a difficult time regaining their focus since they were used to having decisions and choices made for them (Haney, 2001). Second, the prisoners develop distrust, suspicion and become hyper-vigilant. This is a product of the dangers of the prisons. Since the prisoners are confined and cannot walk away from the dangers, they learn to be extremely vigilant and look out for signs of danger that my cause personal harm. The also develop distrust due to the feeling that the other inmates may try to exploit them if the are not attentive. Some learn tough protective statues that keep others away (Harris, & Miller, 2003).

The convicts also become alienated, emotionally over-controlled and psychologically distant. They learn how to control and suppress their emotional reactions and thus project themselves differently to others. They anticipate and control aspects of their behavior towards other intimates and live by treacherous calculations everyday (Travis, & Waul, 2003). They develop entirely new personalities that conceal their real individualities. The prisoners also become socially withdrawn and isolate themselves as well as develop a diminished sense of personal value or self-worth. They totally disconnect themselves from others trusting virtually no one. They develop symptoms of clinical depressions. Also since they lose their privacy and freedom, some prisoners loose their self-worth. The self-worth is also gnawed away by the dehumanizing conditions of the jails (Haney, 2001).

Finally, incarceration has negative economic impacts both on the state and federal government and the inmates. The population of incarcerated individually has risen by over 300% between 1980 and 2008 (The Pew Charitable Trust, 2010). The prison population now stands at 2.3 million individual. The high prison population and the need to provide adequate prison facilities is clearly an economic burden to the government and its taxpayers. The increasing financial challenges are forcing state and federal governments to try and find alternatives to imprisonment, which can protect the public without heavily consuming its funds. On the other hand, incarceration limits the prisoners’ ability to develop economically. It curtails their economic mobility (Lendman, 2010). They have no ability to move up the economic ladder in their lifetime and may also affect the ability of their children of families to improve economically, especially if the individuals incarcerating are the breadwinners of their respectful families. Locking people in prisons limits their capacity to engage in meaningful economic activities that can help improve their standards of living. Half of the male populations in American prison were employed before their incarceration. Half of them were the main source of financial support to their families. The economic repercussions to their families cannot be overstated, and in most cases, when the prisoners are released, they are normally beyond their working years and have a tough time finding employment of meaningful economic activities. Therefore, incarcerations not only affect upward economic movement of inmates, but it affects that of their children, as well.

Incarceration is an indispensable tool as far as fighting crime in the society is concerned. It helps reduce crime by deterring criminals from criminal activities and by locking then away thus incapacitating them, limiting their opportunities to commit crimes no more. However despite the evidence of reduced criminal activities due to incarceration, there are also negative aspects associated with the practice. First, it has numerous negative psychological effects to the inmates, and second it has negative consequences economically to the government and to the inmates and their families. As a result of the increasing number of inmate and the need for improved prison facilities, the government incurs exorbitant costs just to keep the institutions running. On the other hand, incarceration limits the inmate economic mobility by reducing their ability to engage in meaningful economic activities. As a result, they are unable to get economic growth and their families suffer.

References

Abrams, D. S. (2011). Estimating the Deterrent Effect of Incarceration using Sentencing Enhancements. University of Pennsylvania retrieved from https://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/dabrams/workingpapers/Deterrence12312011.pdf

Haney, C. (2001). The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison Adjustment. University of California, Santa Cruz. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm

Harris, O., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Impacts of incarceration on the African American family. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers.

Lendman, S. (2010, December 1). Incarceration’s effect on economic mobility. Retrieved from http://rense.com/general92/incar.htm

Pattillo, M., Weiman, D., & Western, B. (2004). Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass incarceration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

The Pew Charitable Trust. (2010). Collateral Costs: Incarceration’s effect on economic mobility. Washington DC.: The Pew Charitable Trust.

Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2003). Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute Press.