An inquiry into the paradox of imprisonment for reform

Abstract

This work provides an insight into the philosophy of imprisonment for reform. For centuries now, the reform of the criminal has been one of the objectives of imprisonment. But it is apparent that the problems of crime and hard-core criminals are still seriously afflicting mankind despite the introduction of more stern penalties in prison that are supposed to reform the criminal hence reduce these problems. This study therefore questions the veracity of the power of imprisonment to reform criminals. The assumption over time has been that imprisonment does reform criminals, and, that can be cited as the reason why it is still the most popular form of punishment. Our hypothesis in this study has been that imprisonment does not have reformatory significance for offenders. This study established that reformation and imprisonment are incompatible and cannot be carried out at one and the same institution like the prison. To achieve our objective, we critically analyzed secondary data using the utilitarian theory of punishment. Sufficient available literature revealed that imprisonment in itself couldn't reform offenders. We therefore concluded that since imprisonment in itself cannot reform criminals due to its inherent nature, reform should not be one of its objectives and should only be used either for retribution or deterrence. This study therefore suggests that the imprisonment of the criminal for punishment should be carried out in a separate institution from the reform process; imprisonment to be the first stage in the punishment process then reform as the final stage.