What is the purpose of imprisonment? Part 3
Everyone reading this series will have their own ideas as regards what is effective and what is not in relation to prison policy. What seems to me to be lacking it is empirical data and analysis.
We live in a digital age. Supermarkets thrive through being able to tell virtually everything about shoppers as a result of the use of their loyalty cards. Computing power is stupendous and increasing all the time. There are many statistical and other tools available to allow the efficacy or otherwise of various steps to be assessed.
For example let us take the "short sharp shock" theory. That is the idea that a short prison sentence will shock the offender is so much that he or she will not reoffend. It may sound plausible, but is it right? Even if it is right, at what age or prison profile will it be effective? I'm not suggesting that no one should ever be sent to prison. Plainly some offences and some offenders require imprisonment. However, where policy reasons are being pursued, those are either grounded in demonstrable fact or they are not. Sentencing options and outcomes should be based not merely on the table which sets out tariffs for certain offences, but based upon the desirability of the outcome. It may well be that some offences the imposition of punishment is more important consideration of the consequences. Even if there was considerable cause for optimism that a deliberate murderer would mend his ways if given probation, it would be rather difficult to impose such a sentence without undermining public confidence in the legal system. However at certain lower levels of offending the outcome may be rather more important.
If someone is to be given a chance surely it is better that there is an informed decision about what is the right thing to do with the particular individual. You would not run a business on gut feeling without statistical analysis. It seems difficult to see why you should run sentencing policy any differently.
Nor does this merely apply to questions of imprisonment. One could similarly apply it to probation. (Or indeed any other form of penalty). Does it work? If it does, which people does it work with? When is it best imposed? What conditions are effective, and why? These are all questions which any coherent sentencing policy ought to have some idea about. Blundering in the dark is no way to run anything, still less something as important as sentencing policy.
This also applies to decisions to release prisoners. Everyone will have read various horror stories of parole board decisions to release people who proved to be complete monsters. However anecdotal evidence of this sort is often grossly unrepresentative. The offence profile of those released by the parole board should however be available. It is difficult to see a justification for a group being in charge of potential release if the statistical evidence does not actually support the quality of judgments made.
Ultimately there are various political decisions always involved in sentencing policy. However those decisions should be based on hard fact, not prejudice.