Students at Marlwood School undertook some independent study of some economic issues of their own choice. An impressive collection of work and here is my pick of them by Rebekah Ashford:
Do the social benefits of prison outweigh its
economic costs?
Should
tax payers be forking out for ‘TVs and GCSEs’ for lawbreakers?
The
number of people in UK prisons stands at over 85,000. On average, it costs
£38,000 per annum per inmate; leading to an expenditure by the government of
over £3bn each year. Such huge public expenditure cannot proceed without
questioning and economic analysis – especially during a time when budgets are
being slashed due to a looming national deficit. *“An economic approach to assessing the value for money of prison would
involve comparing the cost of prison against its benefits.” Such benefits
could be measured by observing reduced offending rates; or the benefit to
society of rehabilitating prisoners – leading to their employment ‘outside’ and
therefore contributing to the economy and GDP.
We
cannot escape the fact that the cost of prison has risen from 2% GDP to 2.5%
GDP over the last 10 years. We also cannot escape the fact that the majority of
offenders will not have a job in which to immediately engage after they are
released – with 6 out of 10 employers automatically disregarding applicants who
hold a criminal record. Is it a wonder why reoffending rates stand at 47%? It
appears that an unemployed ex – prisoner is driven back to crime though
feelings of lack of purpose, lack of drive and an influential environment,
showing that the government is simply throwing money at the criminal justice
system. If resources were correctly allocated then we should see a significantly
lower rate of reoffending and therefore a lower long run cost.
Food
and shelter are necessities. Denying a criminal of such resources would
arguably be a crime in itself. But when prisoners are provided with luxury;
TVs, music equipment, free education courses, we are left wondering if this is
just. We see the existence of families who are scraping the poverty line, with
parents working tirelessly day and night just to put food on the table, while a
convicted murderer lounges in a roomy cell watching Eastenders after a hearty
meal. If life would be better in prison, wouldn’t you be tempted? This point
highlights a key economic failure of the justice system; high spending on
prisoners will simply encourage criminality – leading to a higher economic cost
in the future. The government should critically review prison life in order to
drive down reoffending rates.
On
the other hand, prisons have invaluable social benefits. Research suggests that
cutting funds and “Mcdonald-ising” our cells would actually decrease value for
money. Investing more in prisons per head delivers financial savings in the
long run; educational and vocational programmes saving society an average of
£50,000 per inmate. It is very easy from a position of financial and family
stability to criticize prisoners. But we cannot chose where we are born, and to
what circumstances we are born into. Of course a main social benefit of prison
is the safety of the general public from dangerous criminals; can a value be placed
upon this safety? After exploring facts and figures on the BBC website, I was
surprised to discover that over half of all prisoners had run away from home as
a child: with 70% suffering with 2 or more mental disorders, making me
contemplate my previous naivety. From presuming that the majority of prisoners were
‘lazy unemployed yobs’, I have come to understand that people can be driven to
crime for a number of reasons. This leads to the argument that a
“rehabilitation revolution” is the only way forward (described by Ken Clarke –
Justice Secretary in 2008) – the root of the problem must be addressed in order
to overcome it. Through counselling, training schemes and education, prisoners
are given the opportunity to turn their lives around and to gain skills which
can increase their chances of becoming employed. Socially, this is very
beneficial as it allows ex-prisoners to support themselves, their families and
the economy as whole; statistics showing that the majority of those entering
prison have no qualifications. Even celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay has cooked up
controversy in his new show “Gordon Behind Bars”, claiming that his “learn to
earn” regime aims to rehabilitate prisoners who are “sick of failing, of not getting
somewhere, not being someone." Everyone
deserves a second chance. Don’t they?
After
analysing the argument, I am beginning to understand why we as a nation invest
in prisons. Although some argue that prison is “too kind” and “financially
draining”, I have developed the belief that rehabilitating people with troubled
backgrounds and personal issues is incredibly valuable, both economically and
socially. There is thought that alternatives to prison may deliver a better
return on public money. For example, residential drug treatments have been
praised for delivering low reoffending rates along with a saving of £200,000
over the lifetime of an inmate in comparison to prison. But can pill popping
really solve the complex issues that prisoners are often wrapped in? No. The
social benefits of giving people a second chance, a second life clearly
outweigh this economic cost – which with effective prison regime would be
expected to decrease. The government’s primary aim is to maximise social
welfare; holding the duty to improve lives of people from all walks of life in
all types of situations.
Should
tax payers be forking out for ‘TVs and GCSEs’ for lawbreakers?
The
answer could be yes.
RESEARCH
METHODS:
Looking
at past interviews on the subject (BBC website) from Ken Clarke – Justice
Secretary
Google
– to find out key figures and facts
The
Guardian – a very helpful article entitled “the real cost of prison”
Asking
the opinions of others on the subject before drawing my own conclusion
REFERENCES:
*www.insidetime.org
