Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Prison isn't working for women - can it be fixed

39 replies

RethinkingLife · 06/10/2024 11:01

Good piece with thoughtful contributions. All the contributors align on the reality that prison is inappropriate for the majority of the women sent there and serves no useful function.

So many quotable items and statistics. This summary is good.

If you're only thinking about working with women at the point at which they're sent to prison, you're starting too late. The real solutions are earlier upstream, where change needs to happen.
Women are being sent to prison essentially as a punishment for being poor and falling into debt - they are the shock absorbers of poverty. Survivors of domestic abuse are criminalised.
They often experience horrendous mental health problems. The list just goes on. The system is completely broken.
Labour‘s Women's Justice Board is welcome if it can really do something. In the long term, we want to stop women being criminalised for the discriminatory experiences they have.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c243650gj07o

Montage image of handcuffs with one in the shape as the gender symbol for females

Prison isn't working for women, ministers say. Can it be fixed?

People with experience of the criminal justice system discuss how it can be reformed for female offenders.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c243650gj07o

OP posts:
Autumnowl · 07/10/2024 10:35

Why do they need to

SerendipityJane · 07/10/2024 10:35

Autumnowl · 07/10/2024 10:33

Prison needs to be reserved for violence and abuse ,murder ,causing injuries .
Burglary,...a lot of what people are put in prison for could be delt with by community service, putting back in to the community..and curfew,more use of ankle tags .

But how can private companies make money out of that ?

Think these things through !

Autumnowl · 07/10/2024 10:33

Prison needs to be reserved for violence and abuse ,murder ,causing injuries .
Burglary,...a lot of what people are put in prison for could be delt with by community service, putting back in to the community..and curfew,more use of ankle tags .

MrSeptember · 07/10/2024 10:27

Igmum · 06/10/2024 16:29

Glad to see this, but it has been an issue for many years. Women rarely commit crimes but, when they do, courts judge them more harshly and sentence them more severely than they would men.

Yes, this.

Also, I seem to recall there's some research, but it might be US-led, that often these relatively petty crimes that women are over punished for, are often directly as the result of poverty, caring responsibilities and/or abusive relationships - shoplifting food for example.

RethinkingLife · 07/10/2024 10:23

Agreed, RoyalCorgi.

Fixing prison seems to involve overhauling not only criminal justice and understanding how best to protect society but also fixing the care system, education, domestic violence, and a host of other wicked problems.

online.mason.wm.edu/blog/what-makes-a-wicked-problem

OP posts:
RoyalCorgi · 07/10/2024 09:16

Thanks for the Malcolm Gladwell quote, RethinkingLife. That makes the point - and illustrates the dilemma - very nicely.

I think that the problems relating to men and women in prison are different from each other, though there is some overlap. There are far fewer women in prison, for a start, so it's easier to treat them as a homogenous group. Most are in for crimes relating to poverty (shoplifting etc) or for drug offences, in some cases having been forced into those crimes by male partners. Many have a history of prostitution, many are from care backgrounds, many have histories of domestic abuse (I think that something like half of all women in prison have brain damage from domestic violence.) When you put a woman in prison, you remove her from her children - often she is put many miles away, because there are so few women's prisons. So the family is broken up and the child suffers as well as the mother. It's very hard to argue the case that prison is the right place for these women.

It's true that men in prison often have mental health problems and a background in care and so on. And probably shoving them in with a load of other male criminals isn't going to lead to ideal outcomes. On the other hand, men are a harder problem to solve, in my view, because so many are in for offences of violence or sex offending. What are you going to do with them if you don't put them in prison? Sentences for crimes of violence or sexual assault are already, some would argue, remarkably lenient.

SerendipityJane · 07/10/2024 08:51

Prison - like a lot of modern life - is a classic example of a solution looking for a problem.

There is fuck all point in wasting valuable intellect on pissing about with subjects like this until you take a step back and ask yourselves "What are we truing to achieve here.?". Which at the moment is clear as mud. This can be trivially seen if you are unlucky enough to catch "Question Time" and realise the 4 panellists have 4 completely separate ideas about "justice". Which considering one of them is in the government tasked with delivering "justice" isn't a great start to the day.

When you have worked out what you want the criminal justice system to deliver, you can then advance to the next step of "how".

Personally, I think the use of prison should primarily be to remove people from society who have shown they are a real danger to the public. This rarely tends to be women. Unless they are challenging the patriarchy of course. That cannot go unpunished.

Igmum · 06/10/2024 16:29

Glad to see this, but it has been an issue for many years. Women rarely commit crimes but, when they do, courts judge them more harshly and sentence them more severely than they would men.

RethinkingLife · 06/10/2024 15:12

Theres no appetite for that tho because that would mean some people getting “something for nothing”.

Malcolm Gladwell's Million Dollar Murray explores this concept in an interesting way.

That is what is so perplexing about power-law homeless policy. From an economic perspective the approach makes perfect sense. But from a moral perspective it doesn’t seem fair. Thousands of people in the Denver area no doubt live day to day, work two or three jobs, and are eminently deserving of a helping hand—and no one offers them the key to a new apartment. Yet that’s just what the guy screaming obscenities and swigging Dr. Tich gets. When the welfare mom’s time on public assistance runs out, we cut her off. Yet when the homeless man trashes his apartment we give him another. Social benefits are supposed to have some kind of moral justification. We give them to widows and disabled veterans and poor mothers with small children. Giving the homeless guy passed out on the sidewalk an apartment has a different rationale. It’s simply about efficiency. We also believe that the distribution of social benefits should not be arbitrary. We don’t give only to some poor mothers, or to a random handful of disabled veterans. We give to everyone who meets a formal criterion, and the moral credibility of government assistance derives, in part, from this universality. But the Denver homelessness program doesn’t help every chronically homeless person in Denver. There is a waiting list of six hundred for the supportive-housing program; it will be years before all those people get apartments, and some may never get one. There isn’t enough money to go around, and to try to help everyone a little bit—to observe the principle of universality—isn’t as cost effective as helping a few people a lot. Being fair, in this case, means providing shelters and soup kitchens, and shelters and soup kitchens don’t solve the problem of homelessness. Our usual moral intuitions are little use, then, when it comes to a few hard cases. Power-law problems leave us with an unpleasant choice. We can be true to our principles or we can fix the problem. We cannot do both.
…
Power-law solutions have little appeal to the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve special treatment; and they have little appeal to the left, because their emphasis on efficiency over fairness suggests the cold number-crunching of Chicago-school cost-benefit analysis.

https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/A%20MillionDollarMurray.pdf

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-dollar-murray

Million-Dollar Murray

Why problems like homelessness may be easier to solve than to manage.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-dollar-murray

OP posts:
LoveSandbanks · 06/10/2024 14:00

If you look at 90% of the prison population you find a history of childhood family dysfunction, poor education/attendance in education, mental health issues etc. im
not saying that the people who commit these crimes aren’t responsible for their actions at all but from a long term, economic view if we put more money into early years we might prevent some of the crime that leads to people being in prison.

Theres no appetite for that tho because that would mean some people getting “something for nothing”. Unfortunately this attitude leads (imo) to feeling disenfranchised and crime. If society doesn’t care for the individual, the individual sees no benefit to caring about society.

Christinapple · 06/10/2024 12:36

Prison doesn't "work" for almost anyone F or M.

Putting a bunch of criminals together under one roof where they become conditioned to violence and each other tends to make them less suited for fitting in to general society.

RethinkingLife · 06/10/2024 12:33

ArabellaScott · 06/10/2024 12:00

Glad that this is being addressed with some nuance.

It's good to see the acceptance that most women prisoners are non-violent and non-prolific.

The statistics around the numbers who've a history of domestic violence is wretched. I've read before that an horrendous number have a clinical history of repeated head injuries that impacts them in so many ways.

I assume that any special consideration of non-violent, non-prolific offenders will need to be extended to everyone. Not my area, but that would make sense.

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 06/10/2024 12:00

Glad that this is being addressed with some nuance.

Swipe left for the next trending thread