@Ellie126
Where do I start? The ignorance you have displayed is quite sad, actually. I am, by the way, no bleeding-heart hippy/socialist/left leaning voter- probably best characterised as a very slightly right-leaning centrist. I am a realist, though, and I am someone who has witnessed first hand how treating crime (especially among the young) as a public health problem substantially reduced crime and violence, when done well. It is not quick, easy or cheap, however.
The mark of a civilised society is how it deals with its problems. Prisons are not, and should not, solely be about punishment. That is certainly an important part of what they are for, alongside the deterrent aspect and protection of the public from dangerous people. Not everyone in prison is a danger to others though, and even those that are dangerous on entering prison might be able to be helped to no longer pose a threat given time and the appropriate help/treatment/education etc. Rehabilitation is vital, if we want to reduce the risk of re-offending once released- which most will be, at some point. I am, of course, assuming you aren’t proposing keeping anyone with a custodial sentence in prison until they die? If that is the case, that means we have to think about how best to reduce their risk of reoffending upon their release. Not solely for the sake of the individual in question, but for wider society.
We know that without rehabilitation, the risk of further offending is high. We also know that younger people, especially those who have committed relatively minor offences, tend to escalate the seriousness of their crimes after a custodial sentence without rehabilitation. We also know that, done correctly, rehabilitation works and reduces reoffending substantially. If we want any attempt at rehabilitation- which, if you actually care about crime and the impact on the victims of crime and on wider society, you would- it cannot be done in overcrowded prisons, for a number of reasons.
I am not advocating for prisons to be like 5* hotels with substantial luxuries- I do think they should have appropriate accommodation provided and enough space to exist with some degree of privacy; the ability to access safe hygiene facilities; to be able to have some exercise and to be able to socialise; and they deserve to be able to access education, medical care/psychological & mental health support- which trust me, is not possible to provide in overcrowded prisons. I simply believe that safe minimum standards should apply.
There is an argument to be had around sentencing/reduction in time served and parole- but that is separate from whether overcrowding in prisons is fine because they “deserve it”. They deserve punishment, but within set parameters which respect safety and rights. Because that is what your argument amounts to- all prisoners deserve to be stripped of basic rights to safe accommodation because they are “bad” and so we should not care what happens to them. Removing rights and basic dignity is not the mark of a civilised society. We protect the rights of everyone- even those who have done wrong- whilst making sure appropriate punishment is meted out and the public protected- they are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
Overcrowding is creating a tinderbox of trouble- at every level. It increases risk of violence and harm to individual prisoners, and to prison officers; it increases risk of unrest and even rioting. It means prison officers work is harder, more stressful and dangerous. There is also the moral hazard- they cannot do their jobs (to keep run the prison efficiently, ensuring the health and safety of all prisoners, whilst attempting to facilitate rehabilitation of inmates). It is incredibly stressful and soul destroying to feel all you do is fire-fight and cannot do your job- I know this from my own professional career (not in the justice system or prisons). Overcrowding causes harm to everyone involved, and ultimately wider society.
Not everyone in prison have committed “horrific crimes”- in fact, many haven’t. There are some who cannot be rehabilitated, of course, but that isn’t the case for the majority and we should never base policy on the minority who are the most problematic- we develop different ways of dealing with them because they are in the minority. Those that have committed truly horrific crimes and require lifetime imprisonment should also treated as a separate category of prisoner.
Most people aren’t born “bad”- they are shaped by their circumstances and experiences. Many people in prison are there because of mental health problems, deprivation/neglect/poor parenting- or even because of one poor decision which had a bad outcome. Those who have been in the care system are overly represented in the prison population. The list of the “why’s” is extensive- and it never, ever, excuses the wrongs they have done or removes the element of personal responsibility- but it can tell us how we might a) try to prevent others committing crimes by addressing wider factors that society at large can influence; b)help us to understand how to rehabilitate those who are already in the justice system.
So, yes, you should absolutely care about overcrowded prisons. Because it is a matter of individual rights, a matter that reflects whether we as a society uphold basic standards, it is a matter which directly effects safety of prison officers and inmates alike; it is a matter which tells us about the type of society we are because it impacts on whether we want to be seen to be “tough” and “giving him what they deserve”, vs trying to reduce the risk now and in the future by trying to do the things that we know reduce rates of reoffending. If you actually care about crime reduction and improving public safety, then you ought to care very much about overcrowding in prisons.