6% as compared to 25% for those that completed their time in prison. Ronald L. Goldfarb and Linda R. Singer quoted an American Bar Association committee which commented after their observations on this case:
If we, today, turned loose all of the inmates of our prisons without regard to the length of their sentences, and with some exceptions, without regard to their previous offenses, we might reduce the recidivism rate over what it would be if we kept each prisoner incarcerated until his sentence expired." (Ronald L. Goldfarb, Linda R. Singer, p.183)
Another assumption most famous in the minds of the general public is that prison systems keep us safe from "dangerous" criminals that are confined there. Who exactly is a dangerous person? No one is born dangerous. It is us who label them as to be "dangerous." Labeling someone as "dangerous" means that we find ourselves to be in a position to predict the future of someone else's behavior. There has been no scientifically or otherwise established fact that there exists such an ability to make such a prediction. The people who tend to label others "dangerous" are in error and this error leads to the uncalled for imprisonment of many individuals. However, today authorities use this labeling system to lock up protestors and political militants. The Bush administration used the same system to justify their war on Iraq. Neither can any judge nor any psychiatrist foretell the future. The psychiatrists are also well aware of this but the problem is that "if psychiatrists consistently erred in their judgment by predicting that patients would not become violent, when in fact some did, the psychiatrists would lose the power and right to exercise their expertise in court. By over-predicting they avert that tragedy, and no one pays any attention to the 20 or more harmless people locked up to prevent the 21st from committing violence." (Henry...
Steadman, Joseph J. Cocozza, p. 35)
To support my argument further I will refer to The Research Center of the National Probation and Parole Institute of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency which released a study in October 1972 which followed the success and failures of more than 50,000 men throughout the United States who were paroled in 1969. It stated that the recidivism rate was not even close to be as high as it was feared. It further informed that out of then men who returned to prison for violence, only 0.79% were those who were previously involved in serious offenses like homicide, manslaughter, rape and aggravated assault. (David F. Greenberg, p.11)
CONCLUSION
The whole concept of prisons has placated the public with the psychological idea that they are safer with the criminals behind bars. However prisons spawn rage and hostility within the prisoners. This shows that instead of protecting the society and being beneficial for it, prisons are in reality harmful for the society. The effects are nothing but adverse. Society is victimized by the exploitation of its fear of crime and it's about time it realizes it. The danger of needlessly denying an individual his liberty is far greater than the risk of freeing certain individuals who may again commit violent acts.
References
1) National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards & Goals, Corrections, p. 1
2) Milton Rector, President, NCCD, in his foreword to Benedict S. Alper's "Prisons Inside-Out," p. xii.
3) Ronald L. Goldfarb and Linda R. Singer. "After Conviction" (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1973) p. 183.
4) Henry J. Steadman and Joseph J. Cocozza, "We Can't Predict Who Is Dangerous," Psychology Today, January 1975, p. 35
5) David F. Greenberg, "How Dangerous is the Ex-offender?" The…
