When people commit serious crime in most countries, they are sent to prison. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?

Since time immemorial, forms of detention have been used to punish offenders. Individuals found guilty of serious or violent crimes such as armed robbery, large scale fraud, arson or manslaughter can expect a custodial sentence. Social scientists have often wondered about the merits and dangers of sending convicts to jail. This essay will examine the pros and cons of using prison as a punishment. There are several reasons why lawyers, judges, victims and members of the public advocate locking offenders up. Firstly, there is the principle of retribution: a bank robber, burglar or fraudster must be punished for the crime committed. In addition, many supporters put forward the notion of deterrent. Those thinking of criminal activity, it is argued, might decide against it because they know that a harsh prison term awaits them. Finally, prison fulfils the important role of stopping inmates committing crimes. At least while they are detained, convicts cannot re offend. However, opponents of the use of detention are equally vociferous. They believe that locking a convict in a cell is incredibly expensive. Furthermore, many suggest that this form of punishment completely fails to rehabilitate offenders. When they are released, a significant proportion go on to commit more crimes. Finally, it has been claimed that whilst in jail, mixing with other inmates, prisoners learn to become better criminals. Prison is sometimes referred to as the ‘university of crime’. It is likely that punishing wrong doers by denying them their freedom will carry on. This approach will continue to have both proponents and detractors. It would be sensible for the authorities to examine the effectiveness of this policy from a scientific perspective. It would be useful to know in what circumstances imprisonment is successful and under which conditions it fails. This knowledge could guide future policy.