As children, we are always told that you should not commit a crime because you could go to prison if you do so. Being young and impressionable, I think it’s safe to say most children are quite scared of this eventuality; therefore, the idea of prison can work as an effective deterrent in most cases. However, the idea of Father Christmas also works as an effective illusion of magic in most children's minds. As adults, we are required to view concepts with a great deal more caution and consideration. Is the prison system truly an effective deterrent for adults or is there something else which helps to maintain some level of law and order?

In recent times armed gangs have wrestled control from the authorities in cities like Port-au-Prince in Haiti, whilst Narco gangs have also intermittently dismantled penal authority in countries like Ecuador. The result is chaotic scenes of violence and bloodshed which leaves you wondering what happened to effective law and order in these areas. Some may argue that the penal system is not strong enough and people do as they please without fear of repercussion, whereas others may say socio-political corruption motivates such forceful backlash from the lawless leaders. In these circumstances, no single case is the same, which makes universal principles difficult to apply with total confidence. Despite this, it is not surprising that the world’s lowest crime rates are observed in countries with strong economies.

This makes me wonder: if a country with a relatively high crime rate has a sudden economic boom, and therefore lots of new money to invest in the country, should it invest in a profound prison system to deal with the crime rate? At face value, this may seem like an effective method of removing criminals from the streets and restoring an improved level of law and order. Perhaps they could even impose lengthy prison sentences with a high level of security to make sure these offenders remain out of the public domain. However, I would urge anyone to look past the face value and consider the social and financial ramifications of secluding an already vulnerable section of the population in a concrete confinement of negativity.

Of course, I am not arguing that offenders of serious crimes like murder or rape should be allowed to roam the streets freely. What I am proposing, though, is a different view of how to deal with less serious, yet still concerning crimes, such as theft, criminal damage or even assault. With the exception of extreme levels of these less serious crimes, I would consider the offenders to be of no major threat to the average member of the public. In such cases, would it surely not be better to seek some form of constructive community reform than condemn people to a label and a jumpsuit that separates them as inferior members of society.

First of all, if we observe the countries with some of the strictest laws and penalties, we can see evidence of a harsh approach working to maintain social order. Singapore is a good example of this. There are a plethora of public offenses in Singapore, from eating on public transport to smoking in public, that will earn you a hefty fine. Even an honest act such as feeding pigeons is banned there. The threat of these big fines appears to maintain public cleanliness and social order. Furthermore, there are severe penalties, such as the death penalty, in the case of armed robbery, murder or drug trafficking. Whilst this does appear to work, you may argue that the public lives in some sort of fear or that there is a restriction on civil liberty.

Moreover, a country like New Zealand, which is often regarded as having one of the most lenient approaches to enforcing its law, also sees a low crime rate. Therefore, we can observe the opposite kind of effect to Singapore. Instead of living in fear of breaking the law, they respect the leniency they are afforded, on top of that they can enjoy greater civil liberties. Of course, we can never be really sure of how equally these countries report or log crimes, however, there is one similarity in both cases. They both place importance on the idea of reform. Even a strict country like Singapore does employ strategies of reform for less serious crimes like drug abuse rather than imposing lengthy prison sentences.

Whether the laws are strict or lenient, I would argue that the emphasis should be on a method of reforming offenders that does not involve lengthy prison sentences, providing they are not a threat to the general public. In the UK, for example, the current reoffending rate is around 25%. This means a quarter of all offenders have been failed by the system. Whilst some studies suggest that in the UK 75% of ex-inmates reoffend within 9 years of release. If prison really was a deterrent, then this number would be much lower. If prison really was a place that emphasised changing people for the better, then this number would be much lower. If prison really worked, then this number would be much lower.

If we judge a penal system by its ability to keep crime rates low and serve justice to the victims and perpetrators of crime, then we must value the importance of reforming criminals. If the figures behind re-offending in the UK are anything to go by, then it is pretty clear that the UK prison system is broken. I am not sure if there is a clear and simple solution to fix it. Nevertheless, I suggest that providing more suitable schemes and programmes for offenders of non-serious crimes, to be given a chance at reform, would be a good place to start fixing this issue.