Reframing the ‘Prison Works’ debate. For whom and in what ways does prison work?

JM Moore argues that prison works very well in maintaining an unjust society and deflecting attention from wider harms.

Debates around the question ‘does prison work?’ tend to focus on how it meets the philosophical justifications for its deployment as state punishment. Does prison deter, rehabilitate, incapacitate? Is it a just response to crime? In answering these questions we find that the evidence available is at best ambiguous and often damming.

As Thomas Mathiesen (1990) has shown when you put prison on trial it is unable to prove its case even on the balance of probabilities let alone beyond reasonable doubt. Those who advocate most passionately for the use of imprisonment are often forced to concede its current failure, with for example Charles Murray (1997:14) claiming that prison fails to deter ‘because the sentence is not harsh enough’. By sending more or less people to prison or by making prisons conditions harsher or more reformative or prison sentences longer or shorter the evident failure of the prison to achieve its official objectives is explained away and it is presented as the solution to its own failure. An illusion is created that despite its failings, the prison is still seen as an indispensable institution with a noble purpose that, with suitable reform, could work. When, inevitably, those reforms fail a new set of reform proposals emerge to replace them.

The fundamental flaw in this debate is that it accepts at face value the justifications offered for the prison. The presumption is firstly made that prison exists as a response to crime and secondly that it can be a just punishment and/or an effective deterrent and/or an opportunity to reform the criminal and/or is necessary for public protection. An alternative perspective has been proposed by Mike Fitzgerald (1977:14) who argued that rather than asking ‘does prison work?’ we should instead ‘pose the additional question are prisons useful,’ and more specifically ‘to who and in what ways’? Given the resilience of the prison as an institution and its capacity, for over two centuries, to survive damning critiques it must surely be of use to somebody?

In seeking to reframe the ‘does prison work?’ debate I would like to suggest that there are six ways in which prison does work.

1. Identifying who are the ‘criminals’

Through the drafting of law, discretion in its enforcement, and a focus on often relatively harmless offences the criminal justice system focuses predominately on the most vulnerable and socially excluded. Common sense understandings that uncritically link crime with prison lead to the prisoner being imbedded in the public imagination as the stereotype of the criminal thereby allowing the far greater deviancy and harms of the powerful to remain hidden. It is those who are imprisoned that we are taught to see as the most dangerous and harmful rather than those who run the banks, sell us unsafe products or are responsible for unsafe workplaces.

2. Disciplining the poor

Criminal justice and penal law were not designed in a just society but developed within unequal societies to reflect and reinforce existing power structures. Put bluntly their intention was never justice but to reflect and protect the interests of the powerful. Prisons continue to recognise this reality both by their treatment of those incarcerated in them and through the threat of their use against a wider population. The disproportionate and vicious judicial reaction to the 2011 protests/riots in England demonstrated prison’s utility as a mechanism for protecting an unjust order.

3. The disposal of outcasts

Those at the margins of society – the mentally ill, the homeless, people with learning difficulties – are massively overrepresented in prison populations. Whilst there is little convincing evidence that the socially excluded are responsible for significant harm, they do represent a nuisance which increases as social welfare provision is removed. Criminal justice, with its focus on individual blame, disproportionately targets these vulnerable individuals and prison is used to remove them from society. As Angela Davis (2005:41) has observed ‘the prison becomes a way of disappearing people in the false hope of disappearing the underlying social problems they represent.’

4. Provide a (false) sense of security

The ending of the social democratic consensus and its replacement with neoliberal ideas has seen increased social insecurity. Zero-hour contracts, insecure low paid jobs, the routine sanctioning of benefit claimants and savage cuts across public services have created a society that is characterised by endemic insecurity and anxiety. The politics of austerity have led to both an increase in inequality and a reduction in social security. Rather than respond by addressing its root causes – building social housing, providing secure jobs, expanding social care, imposing a living wage and investing in education, health and welfare – crime, immigration, and the threat of terrorism are presented as the cause of insecurity. Increased policing, surveillance and prisons become the solution. Inevitably they do nothing to relieve the social insecurity generated by neoliberalism which remains to be utilised to justify further punitive responses directed at the most vulnerable victims of austerity whilst continuing to deflect attention from those who are both responsible for the economic crisis and benefit most from the austerity imposed in response.

5. Deliver the votes

From the 1970s as politics moved from a focus on capitalism tempered by collectivist social welfare to the individualistic and harsher capitalism of neoliberalism politicians sought to exploit crime as the proxy for the consequent insecurity. As the main parties fought for votes – for their slightly different brands of neoliberalism – they promised to be tough on crime, advocated punitiveness and entered into an auction over the length of prison sentences. It worked. More prisons, longer sentences and more punitive conditions proved attractive to voters. Crime, alongside immigration and the threat of the ‘other’ have provided a politics of scapegoating which have proved attractive to fearful voters whilst distracting attention from the real causes of increased social harm and insecurity.

6. Generate profits

The expansion of prisons has provided significant commercial opportunities for private companies who both build and run prisons. Further opportunities have presented themselves through the expanding penal industrial complex – CCTV monitoring, electronic tagging, probation services, prisoner escort services and research contracts. For these companies penal expansion in general and the prison in particular has certainly worked.

More concerning has been the development of carceral Keynesianism, the belief that investment in prisons can benefit economically deprived communities by bringing them jobs and investment. However as well as its obvious ethical problems (if you want to create jobs surely paying people to dig holes and fill them in is more useful than paying them to inflict pain) the economic benefits are widely exaggerated as Robert Jones (2013) has argued in respect of the super-prison currently under construction in Wrexham. The same level of investment in health, education or youth services would not only be a more socially useful investment but create more jobs.


State punishment in general and prisons in particular have never really been about justice, nor have they ever really been about rehabilitation. These, along with incapacitation and deterrence, are best understood as justifications intended to legitimise an institution whose true purpose has always been to protect the property of the rich, deflect our attention away from the deviancy and harms of the powerful and to reinforce and deepen structural inequalities. It is because prison works to maintain an unjust society that it should be abolished.


  • Davis, A.Y. (2005) Abolition Democracy, New York: Seven Stories Press
  • Fitzgerald, M. (1977) Prisoners in Revolt, Harmondsworth: Penguin
  • Jones, R. (2013) ‘Wrexham’s super jail will be too big’ ClickonWales online at
  • Mathiesen, T (1990) Prison on Trial, London: Sage
  • Murray, C. (1997) Does Prison Work? London: Institute of Economic Affairs
This entry was posted in Articles, Comment and Resources, No More Prison. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Reframing the ‘Prison Works’ debate. For whom and in what ways does prison work?

  1. Pingback: Reframing the ‘Prison Works’ debate. For whom and in what ways does prison work? | micsirwin

  2. Robert Shaw says:

    Prison was originally intended as a replacement for hanging, transportation and flogging at a time when the England had lost access to North America as a destination for those it wanted to transport. At the time it was a dangerously liberal policy and, like so many well-intentioned social interventions, its original purpose was soon forgotten. Will whatever replaces it in the 21st century follow the same path?

  3. Mark Bond says:

    Reblogged this on e-Roll Call Magazine.

Comments are closed.