Variation Among Lower And Higher Imprisoning Countries
Introduction
Crime offenders are placed in prison as lawful punishment. The world has approximately 9.8 million people in prisons worldwide. These individuals are either already serving their sentences or are awaiting sentencing (remand prisoners). According to the eighth edition of Walmsley’s World Prison Population List (2008), the United States ranks as the nation with the highest population of 2.29 million prisoners. China ranks as the second highest nation with 1.57 million people in its prisons. The third country reporting a high rate of prisoners is Russia with 0.89 million prisoners. The highest prison population growth rate in the world is reported in USA. Approximately 756 out of 100,000 USA citizens are in prison (Walmsley, 2008). Russia comes in second with a population rate of 629 per 100,000 citizens (Walmsley, 2008).
This paper aims to discuss variations among higher and lower imprisoning countries. Variables like political economies, socio-cultural factors, economic factors and crime rates will be examined as factors that cause variation among imprisonment.
Variations of Imprisonment
It had been thought for a long time that globalization would bring about harmonization in many things, including penal severity. This, however, is debatable as different countries in various regions pass different imprisonment sentences. Few examples have been cited where countries have changed their penal tendencies. One notable factor that can make a country to change its penal traits is rules and regulations of an intergovernmental organization. Russia discontinued capital punishment after she joined the Council of Europe in 1996. It was a requirement by the Council of Europe that each of its members follows the European Convention to Human Rights. This meant that Russia had to abandon the death penalty.
Various factors can be termed as determinants of penal variation among countries. These include socio-cultural, political, economic factors and crime rates. Political economies and its relationship with penalties in different countries will be first discussed. Capitalist countries can be divided into four groups or types of countries which include i) neo-liberal, ii) conservative corporatist, iii) social democratic corporatist and iv) oriental corporatist. This essay will review only the first three types. Countries that fall under these groups exhibit different penal trends which are lined to their political economies (Cavadino and Dignan, 2006).
Neo-liberal countries usually follow an individualism philosophy. USA is one example of a neo-liberal country. Social relationships in the USA are egalitarian. Citizens in this country are however divided by a difference in economic status. The gap between the rich and the poor is markedly high which results in social exclusion. This results in marginalization of people based on economic differences. The economic policy in neo-liberal countries is free market. Social exclusion is the denial of an individuals’ participation in an enriched social and political life. This means that different people have access to different job opportunities, commodity markets, among other things. This social exclusion leads to the formation of ghettos. There is a large material inequality among citizens of USA. Other examples of neo-liberal states include New Zealand, Australia and England.
A Conservative corporatist welfare state places national interest groups at its heart. This means that national groups (workers unions, etc) have been afforded some control over those they represent as long as they have ideologies aligned with national interest. Members of these national groups enjoy a range of welfare benefits, unlike their counterparts in neo-liberal states. An example of a conservative corporatist welfare state is Germany. Income differentials in conservative corporatist countries are not extreme. All citizens in these countries are guided by the communitarian philosophy whereby they are linked to the state. These countries have a strong reliance on traditional institutions like churches. The Netherlands, France and Italy are examples of countries that are conservative corporatists.
The third category of countries is social democratic corporatism. The economic policy adopted by the state is universalistic. The state contributes generously towards the welfare of its citizens without discrimination among different age groups. The difference between statuses is egalitarian. Citizens of these countries have limited income differentials. The state is generous and there is limited social exclusion. An example of this country is Sweden. Of the categories mentioned, social democratic societies care the most about its citizens who are economically challenged.
The mode of punishment in neo-liberal countries is exclusionary while in conservative welfare states it’s inclusionary. Social democratic societies have inclusionary modes of punishment. The rate of imprisonment in neo-liberal states is high compared to that of conservative corporatist welfare and social democratic states that is medium and low, respectively.
Neo-liberal states like USA have higher imprisonment rates than the other types of states. The conservative corporatist welfare states rank second as their imprisonment rate is medium while the social democratic corporate states like Sweden rank third with low rates of imprisonment (Cavadino and Dignan, 2006). It is theorized that neo-liberal states promotes inequality which results in a less unified state. This in turn causes alienation of citizens whose effect is increased crime (Cavadino and Dignan, 2006). Poverty is a prime cause of crime. People without money are inclined to look for illegal ways of earning it. Neo-liberal countries promote individualism whereby everyone caters to themselves. As crime rates increase, so does the number of people to be imprisoned increases. It is also arguable that states that encourage social groupings linked to welfare states develop unified communities that act as social control. Societies with strong community relationships have been documented to report less crime because the citizens have a strong feeling of belonging (Omerod, 1997; Wilkinson, 2005).
Cultural attitudes are believed to be associated with difference in crime and imprisonment rates in different types of states. Citizens in neo-liberal states have been made to believe that they are responsible for their own income, safety as well as other needs. This means that the society is not responsible for an individuals’ economic failure. Crime is also seen as purely the fault of an individual thus strict and harsh penalties are set as punishment for crimes committed. The higher the economic inequity in a country, the more severe is its penalty against crimes (Wilkins and Pease, 1987).
Social democratic and conservative welfare states are more lenient towards citizens who break the law. The state views it as their responsibility to protect their citizens. Offenders are seen as individuals who have wronged the society but need guidance during correction of mistakes. The citizens are not isolated from society but are sentenced to undertake a rehabilitation process that will see them re-enter back into the society. The society assumes some measure of responsibility for the crime that has been committed. It is not clear why social democratic countries like Sweden have the lowest imprisonment rates. However, it is thought that their emphasis on societal cohesion is a major factor (Cavadino and Dignan, 2006). In addition, the conservative welfare and social democratic states spend more money on welfares of its citizens. This bridges the gap between the poor and the rich thus social exclusion is minimal.
Cultural factors have been documented to be associated with levels of penalties and penal polices (Melossi, 2001; Simon, 2001; Vaughan, 2002b). According to Sutherland, there is a strong association between a societies’ punitive system and its cultural values (Sutherland, 1939). Melossi, 2001 added that cultural values have an association with types of crime. Examples of two states that exercise different levels of penalties for crimes committed are the United States of America and Italy. The two countries have different societal cultural backgrounds. Imprisonment rates of the two countries also differ with USA having the higher number of offenders. USA is characterized by a protestant tradition while Italy is heavily characterized by Catholic tradition. Culture also plays a role in the type of crime a society endures (Burns, 2000).
Countries with high numbers of prisoners do not necessarily reflect that the country is serious in imprisoning its offenders (Walmsley, 2003). In addition, the high numbers also does not mean that the country has a very castigatory justice system (Walmsley, 2003). An increase in prison population is not reflective of increasing crime rates in some countries. There is an increasing belief among citizens of various countries that imprisonment is the best alternative as punishment for crimes. In 1997 Kuhn highlighted that lack of confidence in a country’s criminal justice system can lead to harsher penalties for crimes.
Crime rates refer to the accumulative criminal acts in a region, state or community. Crime rates differ across countries. Factors influencing crime rate include high population density, economic conditions, poverty and income inequality and recession. Communities with high crime rates have high levels of economic deprivation (Sampson et al, 1997). These communities have low economic status which is characterized by unemployment, lack of welfare, sub-standard housing, and low income. USA has a higher crime rate than any other country.
Crime rates differ among countries because of various reasons. Firstly, there is a marked difference in criminal justice systems between countries. Secondly, crimes are reported at different rates by victims. At times, the crimes are not reported at all. This causes a variation in the number of criminal acts recorded by the responsible criminal body. Thirdly, reporting systems and data quality of different criminal bodies varies across countries.
An alternative method of measuring crime rates is the use of Criminal Victimization Surveys. This survey is conducted in households and questionnaires are administered. Questions on crimes like burglaries, thefts, sexual offences, among others are asked and answers recorded. The data is then compiled and submitted to the International Crimes Victims Survey.
Conclusion
There is a notable variation in the number of offenders imprisoned in several countries across the world. The country with the highest ranking number of criminals is USA with approximately 2.29 million people in prison. China ranks second with 1.57 million and Russia is third with 0.89 million prisoners. This population has increased since the 1990s. Capitalist countries have been divided into categories namely neo-liberal, conservative corporatist and social democratic corporatist. Countries that are neo-liberal like USA have adopted an individualism ethos whereby individuals are responsible for themselves. The country is divided into different economic lines which results in a large gap between the rich and the poor. This results in social exclusion that promotes crime. Conservative corporatist states like Germany have a communitarian philosophy whereby all citizens are linked to the state. The rate of crime in Germany is moderate and the imprisonment rate is medium. Sweden is an example of a social democratic country that experiences low rates of crime. The Swedish state does not encourage differentials in income of its citizens. USA tends to instil harsher punishments towards criminal offenders while Germany and Sweden’s’ mode of punishment is lower. Cultural factors are associated with the degree of penalties as well as penal policies enforced by a country. In addition, it is theorized that cultural values are associated with types of crime.
References
Burns, R. 2000. Culture as a determinant of crime: An alternative perspective. Environment and Behaviour, 32, 347 – 360.
Cavadino, M. and Dignan, J. 2006. Penal policy and political economy. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6, 435 – 455.
Kuhn, A. 1997. “Prison population: how many? why? what is to be done?”, unpublished conference paper.
Melossi, D. 2001. The Cultural Embeddedness of Social Control: Reflections on the Comparison of Italian and North-American Cultures Concerning Punishment, Theoretical Criminology, 5(4): 403–424.
Ormerod, P. 1997. Stopping Crime Spreading, New Economy 4: 83–88.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W. And Earls Felton. 1997. Neighbourhoods and Violent crime: A Multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277: 918 – 924.
Simon, J. 2001. Fear and Loathing in Late Modernity: Reflections on the Cultural Sources of Mass Imprisonment in the United States, Punishment & Society 3(1): 21–33.
Sutherland, E. H. 1939. Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Vaughan, B. (2002b) Cultured Punishments: The Promise of Grid-Group Theory, Theoretical Criminology 6(4): 411–31.
Walmsley, R. (2008) World Prison Population List, 8th edn. London: International Centre for Prison Studies, King’s College London.
Walmsley, Roy 2003. Global Incarceration and Prison Trends, 3 Forum on Crime and Society, 65–78.
Wilkins, L.T. and Pease, K. 1987. Public Demand for Punishment, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 7: 16–29.
Wilkinson, R. (2005) The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier. London: Routledge.
