item0067A  970, 971

• The difficulty really lies, not with “prison”, but with the general phenomenon of government by prohibition, and with the consequential use of imprisonment as a public sanction for prohibited behaviour.

All societies need (I dogmatically assert…) some kind of predictable social and legal order.  From my anthropological and sociological studies (and I was once - believe it or not - a PhD Sociology student at LSE…) I have concluded that the human condition is inextricably bound up with the operation of structures, systems, customes, conventions, mores.  Social systems differ most enormously, from one local to another, but they have in common a sense of civic order.  There is even honour among thieves, recognising the “order” of criminal communities.  

It seems that humankind depends, for survival of the species, upon the cultivation of forms of predictable personal and social order.  “If you do A, then B will follow…” - “If you fail to do C, then D will follow…” - “If you take these precautions, this is what will happen…”  If disorder reigns, great human distress, physical and mental illness quickly supervene.  The currently high rate of suicide among young American soldiers in Iraq is a sure sign of the destructive disorder which they are experiencing. 

Each ordered society seeks, through its institutions, to inculcate in succeeding generations, a due “sense of order”.  Older citizens, who have grown to understand the profound significance of such a sense, become acutely conscious of the need to cultivate it among succeeding generations.  For some institutions (such as schools, and religious institutions) that process forms part of their rationale.  And it is clear that, in that process of acculturation, the device of prohibition must sometimes be used.  Thou shalt not…  Many other devices are of course deployed by society: social disgrace (naming and shaming), positive inducements or rewards, the targeted dissemination of information, raising educational standards.   

• But prohibition, accompanied by some threat of adverse consequence, has become more and more important.  And for the Governments of modern states, prohibition sometimes seems to be the only tool available.  If resources for education are scarce, if religions lose their force, if the impact of social stigmatisation weakens, if inducements are ineffective, then prohibition may seem the only way for Governments to proceed.

So far, so unexceptionable.  I do not know of any society which has operated without prohibition of some kind – after all, “thou shalt not kill” reflects a universal taboo, does it not? 

It follows that the key issue lies not in the prohibition itself, but in the sanction chosen.  What form of adverse consequence should follow, for the person behaving in the prohibited way?  If you declare any form of behaviour to be a crime, there must be designated some consequence, in some sense adverse.  And our society simply makes far too much use, both as a matter of law and of Court practice, of the consequence of "imprisonment".

• That’s the problem.  I say that this problem has to be tackled at three levels. 

• the consumption of “illegal drugs”

• certain driving offences (adult seat-belts, helmets)

• school truancy

• immigration without consent

• minor property theft from public places

Prison could be retained for failure to make reparations, or look after families, as ordered by a Court.  Driving licences could be withdrawn, for offences unrelated to driving, and one might make further use of vehicle-confiscation, plus disqualification from vehicle-ownership.  I can imagine that for certain cases a “business ban” would be appropriate, preventing a convicted criminal from carrying on business even as a sole-trader: at the moment, there is only disqualification as a company Director, which permits continued trading as a sole-trader.  Disruptive work-orders could be used (e.g  attendance at work during football matches, for football hooligans…).  I would even contemplate time-limited Passport withdrawal, as a punishment.   All of these could be publicised as sanctions, to be used before the Courts move to the use of imprisonment. 

Equally, it is possible to make serious mistakes, in the use of sanctions.  It is wrong to withdraw benefits which go to the fundamentals of life – Blair once threatened to withdraw Housing Benefit for anti-social behaviour, but was rightly opposed, and the idea did not proceed.  And I am very disturbed by the use of ASBOs to restrict the personal freedom of young people, in their mid-teens: such techniques are suitable for adults, but not for children.   Finally, we should not send out mixed messages by using “community service” as a punishment – that is corrosive of the rationale of public, voluntary service itself, and is profoundly unwise.

 < Back to Home Page