Throughout the decades, studies have been conducted to address the question of whether prisons work. The prison is a system used by the State to punish criminals, which is justified by the concept of retributivism (proportional punishment) and crime reduction (Cavadino & Dignan 2007, p36; Pollock 2005, pp3-4). According to the actuarial perspective (Feeley & Simon 1992), prison works in certain circumstances, as it efficiently minimises risks to society by confining individuals of dangerous population for the purpose of social control. However, this risk-focused view of prison’s functionality is limited, as it lacks understanding of the imprisonment of vulnerable groups, since Actuarialism overlooks the cultural factors outside risk-calculations. …show more content…
Despite the argument that actuarial risk assessments through the use of psychometric scales are performed objectively, imprisonment is mainly directed at people from marginalised and disadvantaged groups (Matthew 2005, pp184-185). Since IY are a marginalised group in Australia, the penal system commonly targets them. This leads to the higher incarceration rate of IY compared to non-IY, and if prison is biased in its confinement of offenders, harmful behaviours caused by others outside the easily identified population may be overlooked. As stated by Kemshall and Pritchard (1996), the risk assessment method can be biased, extremely positivistic and dehumanising. To illustrate, disparities have been observed in the use of diversionary processes within Australian youth, as IY are 2.9 less likely to be cautioned compared to non-IY (Allard et al, 2010 p4). This can be caused by the categorisation of IY as more dangerous in comparison to young people of other racial background. The imbalanced use of diversion on youth can be interpreted as an institutionalised form of racial bias found within the criminal justice system, which leads to selective imprisonment. According to Johnston (1991), institutional discrimination or racism refers to the rules and …show more content…
The prison is an institution of forced containment (Matthew 2005, p177), and Simon (2001) claims it goes beyond simply retribution, since this form of punishment also provides protection for the public. More precisely, the deprivation of an individual’s liberty to act aggressively is justified for the return of community safety (Pollock 2005, p4). In other words, the imprisonment of individuals categorised as a risk to society is justified for the purpose of social control and this is seen as a functional attribute of a prison. On paper, this form of management is viewed as an objective and beneficial tool of crime control. For instance, significant risk factors are hyperactivity, low intelligence, broken homes, convicted parents, poor parental supervision, socioeconomic deprivation, poor schooling and situational factors (Carrabine et al 2009, p63; Prinsloo & Ladikos 2006, p114). The identification of offenders based on these risk factors subsequently leads to community protection, as deviant individuals are incarcerated. Incapacitation promises to reduce the effects of crime by rearranging the distribution of offenders in society, as long-term management is placed over high-risk offenders, while short-term control is utilised over low-risk offenders (Feeley & Simon 1992, p458). However,