Are Prisons Places of Reform or Punishment?

Public debate about how prisons should operate, and how prisoners should be treated, have often centered on whether or not prisons should do more for prisoners, or do more to prisoners. In other words, should prisons be more of a place of reform, or a place of punishment? 

The goal of reforming prisoners is fairly new in penal philosophy. New as in within the last 250 years. The philosophy of making prisons places of moral and behavioral reformation began around 1779, but it really picked up steam when the English Quakers got involved in prison reform. 

Quakers believed that religion could reform people, but also that it was the only thing that could produce true alterations in aberrant character. In fact, this belief in the power of faith led them to spearhead reforms in how prisoners were treated in English prisons. They believed that in addition to faith, kindness would produce reforms where misery would not. 

Today's progressive prison reformers are less concerned with faith based reformation and more focused on education as a means of change. But their focus is still on what prisons should do for prisoners, not to them. For these reformers, separation from society and loss of freedom is punishment enough for one's crimes. 

Scattered throughout Michigan's prison system, one might find a handful of prison administrators who espouse this philosophy of reform, to varying degrees. Yet, the vast majority of administrators and corrections officers demonstrate their belief in the opposing philosophy - prisons ought to emphasize punishment over reform. 

Legislative mandates give the appearance of a reform-based philosophy. Prisoners are often mandated to take behavior modifying classes. But in practice, these classes often have very little affect on prisoners, especially on their underlying character. Most character transformation takes place only when a person is ready to change. Moral transformation cannot be coerced. 

Even when prisoners do demonstrate moral transformation, corrections staff, including officers, often view it suspiciously. Instead, many view us as irrevocably corrupt. Programs and classes with reform as their aim usually devolve into meeting legislative objectives on paper. They become sources of funding and job security without much conviction in prisoners' ability or willingness to change. 

To be fair, many prisoners confirm this bias that prisoners cannot change. But many more prove otherwise. 

I don't believe prisoners should be coerced to reform their character, but I do believe that programs, classes, and policies that encourage and facilitate reform should be offered to prisoners. When a prisoner demonstrates a willingness and readiness to reform, those efforts should receive every bit of encouragement and support. 

Prison itself is a punishment, but prisons can also be a place that encourages and supports true change. While we prisoners experience the punishment of prison, we can also learn how to reform our character and behavior. 

(source referenced for history of reforms: The Oxford History of Prison, eds. Norval Morris and David J. Rothman, 1998)