The Futility of Deterrence

By Robert Cullen* ‍

I found myself compelled to write this piece after recent requests for the Irish Penal Abolitionist Network (IPAN) to comment on the highly publicised case of a middle-class family facing state oppression and imprisonment. IPAN believe that imprisonment should not be used as a state response or solution to social issues. This is based on the mountain of evidence clearly showing that instead of decreasing crime within society, prison drives future offending, including exacerbating violent and addictive tendencies as well as serving as a vehicle of state violence against some of the most vulnerable people in society. Personally, I was of the belief that these requests for comment were classist, reinforced common assumptions as to who prison is for, and therefore served to legitimise state oppression over the poor and working-class.

‍ I found myself questioning if the family in question had have come from a poor working-class neighbourhood in Dublin, Limerick or Cork, would there be the same level of interest? Would IPAN have received requests for comment? It seemed we would not, because poor people are sent to prison every day for behaviours directly linked to their experiences of state harms, such as poverty and homelessness, and the traumas associated to them.

This is not to say that the imprisonment of this family was justified or condoned by any means, nor the harmful behaviour of any member of society. However, instead I argue that this case serves as evidence that prison does not, and cannot, function as an adequate means of deterrent. If the threat of prison does not deter a professional middle-class family from pursuing their own needs or goals, how could it ever be expected from deter the man or woman living on the street and overwhelmed by trauma and addiction, from attempting to meet theirs?

Imprisoning the Poor

The Rich Get Richer and The Poor Get Prison is the title of a wonderful book highlighting the way in which the Criminal Justice System (CJS) serves to legitimise and maintain societal inequality. The authors of this book, Jeffrey Reiman and Paul Leighton, tell us that criminal laws are often drafted and enforced in such a way that they act as a threat over the poor and working class, thus keeping them exploitable to those with money, power and influence within the capitalist system.

A simple restaurant analogy articulates this point, and it goes like this:

Situation One: Let’s imagine you are a poor young person gets a job as a waiter at a local restaurant. The business is struggling so tips are hard to come by, and it is hard to pay your bills from your minimum wage salary alone. One Saturday you get to work, and it is unusually busy with the cash register full of crisp €50 notes. The tip jar is also filling up, and this fills you with excitement. With overdue rent and the screeching sound of the prepay electricity meter still ringing in your ear, your nervous system can finally settle. Knowing this level of activity in the restaurant is a rarity, you stupidly slip a couple of notes from the till into your pocket as a mean of getting through the next few weeks.

Situation Two: You are the owner of several restaurants. One of them is in a rundown part of the city. This restaurant is struggling to keep the doors open and every week you must dip into the profits from your other businesses to pay your staff. Unexpectedly one Saturday the restaurant fills up and business is booming. Looking to seize on this opportunity, you decide to go and take a large sum of money from the waiters overflowing tip jar. You tell them that this is for breakage (broken plates and glasses) over the past number of months. After all, you feel entitled to this as it was your profits that kept them in a job this past few months.

Let’s imagine both situations are reported to the authorities. Here we have two situations where one party took money from the other. In situation one, the waiter will be reported to the police, likely charged with a criminal offence, go to a criminal court, and face a criminal sanction, including the possibility of prison and the negative repercussions of a criminal record. However, in situation two, the owner will be reported to the Workplace Relations Commission and summoned to a civil court where they could potentially face a maximum penalty of a fine.

Same place, same action, different actors, very different consequences.

Criminalising Poverty

The criminalisation of poverty is deeply intertwined into the history of the prison. Long before imprisonment was used as a primary form of punishment, when physical punishment was the norm, sustained periods of confinement were still common for those unable to repay a debt. This means that for centuries, it has been the poorest members of society that inhabited the prison.

This theme has remained ever-present within modern society. The recent ‘From Punishment to Prevention’ report commissioned by the Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) has unequivocally shown the link between experiences of poverty and ones likelihood of coming into contact with the Criminal Justice System (CJS). This report tells us that state policy and the resulting social inequality is the true driver of much of the crime on our streets. Irish prisons are overcrowded and the prison population constantly increasing. However, this consistently expanding prison population is occurring within a context of increased housing instability and consistently rising levels of poverty and homelessness within Irish society.

Irish prisons are filled with individuals serving short sentences, with approximately 3 in 4 of those in custody at any given time are serving a sentence of 12 months or less. These sentences are often for petty offences, or what could be referred to as crimes of survival (like the example given above). The majority of those in prison are from the most marginalised and deprived communities within the state. Statistics show that approximately 70 percent of those in custody have addiction issues and large number experiencing homelessness, with almost 70 percent of those having become homeless at a young age. A disproportionate number of those in custody are early school leavers and many are suffering from mental illness. The IPRT report mentioned above outlines the ways in which these circumstances intersect and can serve as a catalyst to encountering the CJS, with prison experience then entrenching and solidifying disadvantage by further socially marginalising and stigmatising those most in need of social support.

Futility of Deterrence

Deterrence-based policies work on the idea that criminal behaviour can be prevented if the punishment for said behaviour is harsh enough. This line of thinking stems from a school of thought known as rational choice theory, whereby every person is assumed to make rational calculations as to the benefit or cost of a behaviour before carrying it out. However, using this framework to guide policy decisions is problematic for several reasons.

The majority of those incarcerated within Irish prisons come from the most deprived areas of the state, with one study showing that 56 percent of prisoners in Mountjoy came from just six districts in Dublin. Irish Travellers are also disproportionately represented within Irish Prisons, with the IPRT report mentioned above showing that 73 percent of travellers under the age of 35 are currently living in poverty and have significantly reduced life expectancy in comparison to the rest of the population (15 years less for men and 11 years less for women). The link between deprivation and criminal justice contact is clear.

Equally clear within the field of psychology and neurobiology, is the way in which deprivation impacts upon brain development. Poverty is stressful, and prolonged stress can physiologically alter brain structure in ways that inhibit emotional regulation, impulse control, learning and memory, and rational thinking. If experiencing poverty risks leaving many individuals predisposed to impulsive behaviour, it is then unsurprising that so many with these experiences inhabit our prisons.

Experiencing poverty does not predict a person’s future criminal behaviour in a deterministic sense. Many people experience poverty and do not go to commit crime or end up in prison. However, the fact remains that the majority of those in prison have experienced poverty, homelessness and substance addiction. Deterrence based policies focus on increasing punishment as a means of reducing harm within society, rather than seeking to address the obvious core drivers. Consequently, it is the poorest, most marginalised and vulnerable members of our society consistently remain the focus of the states punitive policies, whilst the vast harms perpetrated by those in positions of power are obscured. As abolitionists we believe in justice reinvestment, meaning that we take the finances currently allocated to detaining and imprisoning people for short sentences, and instead prioritise empowering individuals and communities to adequately meet their needs as a means of reducing harm.

Both Albert Camus and Michel Foucault write about the futility of deterrence-based policies. Both authors tell stories of criminal behaviour occurring during the public executions of the 18th century, including pickpockets operating within the crowds and violent riots erupting from the drunken behaviour of spectators around the gallows. If watching another individual publicly lose his life for criminal behaviour was not enough to deter criminal actions, how on Earth is an abstract punishment hidden behind a high wall ever supposed to have the desired effect?

We have had close to two centuries of prison reform yet still have the same issues – over-representation of the poor and high recidivism rates. If a medication consistently aggravated patients’ symptoms in over sixty percent of cases, it would never get past clinical trials and if it did, would be quickly discontinued once this was discovered. Yet for some reason we are willing accept this from our justice system despite the documented harm it continues to generate within society. We need to demand an end to the ‘prison or nothing’ logic of the CJS. We need alternatives that deliver public safety; that provide victims with healing; and that works to prevent harm rather than focusing on punishing after the harm has already occurred. This system drives harm, fails communities and fails victims; therefore, it is not justice. We all need better; every one of us deserves better.

*Robert Cullen is a

Masters student in Criminology at UCC. Robert uses his lived experience of childhood trauma, addiction and incarceration to guide his research and advocacy, working as a peer researcher on the recent 'From Punishment to Prevention' report with the Irish Penal Reform Trust alongside his involvement in other community based initiatives.