KAMPALA – What is the purpose of incarceration? Is it to punish wrongdoing? To protect society from dangerous individuals? To make an example of criminals to deter others? Or to reform those who stray beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour? I believe there are arguments for each of these approaches to incarceration, and they often stand in conflict with one another.
In Uganda, there are currently just over 63,082 people behind bars. While we might believe that the threat of imprisonment deters crime and wrongdoing, these figures prove otherwise. With over 63,000 people in prison, we can see that the concept of deterrence isn’t working.
The truth is, our prisons are filled to capacity, and our criminal courts are overburdened. It’s rare to come across newspaper reports that aren’t calling for more effective policing, more stringent laws, and more drastic penalties. However, nothing is stopping the growth of crime because we put more effort into detection and punishment instead of prevention.
In 2013, the International Centre for Prison Studies listed Uganda among the top ten countries with the most crowded prisons. As a whole, the African continent confines 1 million of the 11 million prisoners worldwide. Uganda can do better.
A prison sentence is a poor deterrent
The evidence clearly shows that incarceration does not act as a strong deterrent. Most people, particularly young people, do not make rational cost-benefit analyses before engaging in illegal behaviour. The high rate of reoffending in Uganda clearly indicates that our prisons are failing to rehabilitate most offenders.
Yes, prisons do keep people off the streets, but only for as long as their sentence. We also know that many people resume illegal and risky behaviour shortly after they return home. Mr Frank Bayine, the Prisons Spokesperson, recently told us that 17% of offenders are sent back to prison within two years of release. In addition, a prison sentence does not carry the negative associations you may expect. As one prisoner revealed, “being in jail is no longer a disgrace in society, but rather a national badge of honour.”
Punishment alone is not a good policy
Do we gain anything simply from seeing punishment inflicted on those who have behaved unacceptably? It seems evident from the public reaction to high-profile violent crimes that many of us have a strong desire to see retribution visited on those who harm others.
In handing down a severe sentence, a judge condemns the offender’s behaviour on behalf of society. Many people take the length of the sentence to indicate the level of condemnation. As such, elements of the public and the media often decry “short” sentences for violent crimes as an indication that the legal system does not take these crimes seriously.
The origins of incarceration
In its original form, incarceration was not a punishment in itself but simply a way of detaining people until corporal punishment was delivered. This strongly retributive approach came about at a time when its impact on crime could not be measured. It was believed that harsh punishments were inherently just and that delivering them in public would have a strong deterrent effect. The torturous methods of execution for which the medieval period is known serve as a vivid reminder of the barbarity of that system.
The tide turned on this approach in the 18th century. Sentences of corporal punishment began to be commuted to forced labour, sometimes combined with transportation to Australia. This was the birth of incarceration as we now know it, as a punishment in itself. Since then, the focus has shifted to rehabilitation.
It’s time to reform the justice system
I believe some people present so great a danger to others that action must be taken. The public rightly expects to be protected from those who have committed acts of terrible violence and demonstrate no remorse or desire to change. It may very well be that prison is the only place for such people.
However, such people do not comprise the majority of the prison population. We use incarceration for many people who do not pose any serious threat to others. We also have no reason to believe that people who cannot afford to pay fines will be “reformed” by spending time in prison.
Since crime is a social problem, the police cannot contain the crime problem within a socially tolerable level on their own. Therefore, we must seek alternatives to the cycle of arrest, conviction and punishment of criminals.
Rehabilitation rather than retribution
We should redirect the prison system away from retribution and toward rehabilitation. We need to reform the justice service and create programmes for job training and education, along with further assistance to aid re-entry to the world outside the prison walls.
It should be remembered that crime affects everyone. Therefore, it can’t be controlled without the active support of individual private citizens, schools and businesses. As such, massive community efforts will be required. The law enforcement’s role in these efforts should be to lead, encourage, and assist, but not to take sole responsibility.
It has been decades since the last person was executed in Uganda, but we haven’t seriously confronted this persistent, base element of our approach to criminal justice. If the punitive approach to incarceration harms a great many people without making the rest of us safer, perhaps it’s time we left it behind.
The writer, Richard Musaazi is a Digital Forensics Investigator
www.richardspi.com
