Comparing UK and US Prison Systems

Introduction

The prison systems of England and Wales and the United States are modern prison systems, which have undergone reforms in the 20th century (Devereaux, 2013; Hirsch, 1992). Due to these reforms, the prison population is classified, there is segregation of prisoners, prison conditions have improved over time and other aspects of prison reforms, such as reformation of prisoners, have been brought into effect in these countries. There are however, some areas where both the British as well as the American prison systems continue to have concerns. These are particularly related to the overrepresentation of racialised and ethnic minorities in the prison, prison deaths, and use of private prisons, to name a few. In this essay, a comparative analysis of the prison system in England and Wales is done with the prison system in the United States. This comparative analysis indicates that there are common areas of concern in both countries’ prison administration whereas in some areas the English and Welsh prisons may fare better.

Modern prison system in England and the United States

The modern prison system in England and Wales has much to do with the end of the Bloody Code (English criminal justice system between the 17th and the 19th century). As long as the Bloody Code was applied, the English statute books prescribed death penalties for many crimes that today will be punishable with imprisonment, like recurrent theft (Devereaux, 2013). The end of the Bloody Code led to the prison reforms of the 18th and 19th century, because with the end of the Bloody Code more and more criminals had to be housed in the prisons of England and Wales and not sent to the gallows. The increased prison population meant that certain reforms had to be carried out. In the 18th century, prisons in London were remodelled; smaller prisons were replaced with bigger prisons that were meant to intimidate prisoners and local people (Hitchcock, 2012). Around this time, John Howard published his research on the state of prisons in England and Wales (Howard, 1777 ). This led to the passage of the Penitentiary Act 1779 (Hitchcock, 2012, p. 188). The Penitentiary Act 1779 was concerned with the establishment of penitentiary houses that were more humane and which included religious instruction and well-regulated labour. Howard’s research showed that existing prisons in England and Wales were “loathsome cells, of pestilential fevers, and the confluent small-pox: victims, I must not say to the cruelty, but I will say to the inattention, of sheriffs, and gentlemen in the commission of the peace” (Howard, 1777 , p. 7). Modern prison system in England and Wales was also concerned more with the issue of prisoner health (Reed, 2003). At the time, English prisons housed mentally ill prisoners as well and Howard lobbied for the appointment of surgeon or apothecary in all prisons (Reed, 2003). In the United States, the modern prison system and prison reforms were carried out around the same period as in England; however, reforms were not influenced by the critical writings of English reformists of the period but were influenced by the practical conditions of American cities and towns which demanded a more effective and hard labour prison administration (Hirsch, 1992). In 19th century American cities, population increased due to migrations, property related crimes grew, and due to the improved legal and judicial system, conviction rates had increased. This led to demands for incarceration of those convicted and therefore a demand for more prisons and a more effective prison system (Hirsch, 1992). The reforms that happened at this time in the prison system of the United States is different from the same era reforms in England. In England, reforms were concerned with the development of prisons that were more humane (Howard, 1777 ). However, in the United States, reformers were more concerned with providing sites of incarceration as prior to this period, punishments were either in the nature of hanging or fines (for minor offences). None of these required incarceration (Rothman, 2011). In the 19th century, reformers in the United States became more concerned with providing imprisonment as a punishment and were not as concerned with the institution's internal routine and systems (Rothman, 2011). Therefore, in the sense of prison reforms with the prisoner in mind, it is England and Wales prisons that have been more ahead in time as compared to the United States where reform of the same nature came later in time.

Categorisation of prisoners

The prison system in England and Wales divides the prison population into two categories depending on the nature of offences committed by the prisoners (Pakes & Holt, 2017). Category A prisoners are those individuals who are considered to be highly dangerous to the public or national security. These are the individuals who are convicted of serious offences such as murder, terrorism, rape, offences against the state, and individuals convicted of crimes under the Official Secrets Act, to name a few serious offences (Pakes & Holt, 2017). In the US, equivalent prisons would be maximum security prisons. Category B prisoners are those who are convicted of the same types of offences as category A prisoners, but they are not considered to be as high risk for escape. These prisoners may have been degraded to Category B because of good behaviour. Category C prisoners are those prisoners who are unlikely to try to escape but cannot still be trusted in open conditions (Pakes & Holt, 2017). These prisoners are not convicted for serious offences. At times, Category B prisoners are also downgraded to Category B. Category D are those prisoners who are not considered to be at risk of escape and can be trusted to stay within the open prison. Therefore, Category D prisoners are the only prisoners who are held in "Open Prisons” (Pakes & Holt, 2017). These prisoners may also be allowed to work outside of the prison in the community and short home visits. Prisons have segregation for women and men prisoners (Pakes & Holt, 2017). Like male prisoners, female prisoners are also categorised into four types of security levels: Category A, Restricted Status, Closed, and Open prisons. This categorisation is also based on the nature of crime that the female prisoners are convicted of as well as the risk assessment of the prisoners (Pakes & Holt, 2017). In the United States, the prison population makes up for 22% of the total world prison population, which when contrasted with the fact that the United States only has 4.4% of the world population, indicates that the United States has a disproportionate prison population as compared to its general population. In the United States, prisoners are categorised on the basis of a system of inmate classification. Prisoners are classified on the basis of their offence, behaviour, age, and risk assessment. Therefore, those prisoners who have committed the most serious offences, and are also at a high risk assessment for escape from prisons are housed at maximum security prisons. Those who have committed serious offences but are not at the risk of escape may be housed in medium security prisons. There are further levels of minimum security prisons which are meant to house prisoners who are not considered to be public security risk. Minimum security prisons are constituted by non-secure dormitories where prisoners are housed. Correctional officers routinely patrol the dormitories. Minimum security prison has a single perimeter fence usually without armed watch towers or roving patrols although it is subject to regular inspections by the prison authorities. As compared to medium security prisons, there is not as much less supervision and control over inmates and their movement within the prison. This is due to the less risk posed by inmates at minimum security prisons to public safety. Also, inmates at minimum security prison participate in community based work assignments as well.

Categorisation of prisoners is therefore done in both the British and the American prison systems. The categorisation basis is similar in both systems. A positive effect of this categorisation is that prisoners who have not committed serious offences are kept away from those who have. Moreover, those who have not committed serious offences are given an opportunity to be involved in community service.

Use of private prisons

The prison system in England and Wales is overseen by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons. While the prison system is public sector and is managed by Her Majesty's Prison Service and is a part of Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service, many of the day-to-day running of a number of previously existing prisons and new facilities are taken care of by private companies (Mennicken, 2013). This means that there is a combination of public and private prisons in England and Wales. Privatisation of prisons is related to a process whereby prisons that are meant to actually be managed by the state come to be managed by private firms. In this context, privatisation is defined as “a contract process that shifts public functions, responsibilities, and capital assets, in whole or in part, from the public sector to the private sector” (Austin & Coventry, 2001, p. 2). When prison administration is privatised, a number of public functions and responsibilities that have institutional characteristics come to be administered by the private prisons. Privatisation of prison administration relates to the outsourcing of public functions that relate to incarceration and reformation of offenders. This is the task of the state to be actually carried out in the premises or the facilities of the state; however, when this is privatised, it leads to the incarceration and reformation of offenders in private facilities. Some critics point out that privatisation of prison administration would amount to the delegation of an important function of the state to private firms who would perform the functions for the profit purpose (Metzger, 2003). At this point, it would be interesting to note that laws barring prisons from engaging in profit-seeking activities were made in the 1920s and 1930s in the United States, but these were repealed in 1979 (Torrey, 2015, p. 899). Therefore, there is no bar on profit seeking from prison administration in the United States. In England and Wales, the Home Secretary has the power to contract out prison administration to private firms under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Admittedly, the prison administration by the private firms is for profit. However, there is oversight by the state. Private prisons can be subjected to inspections by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, and are monitored by local Independent Monitoring Boards. Moreover, there is a system of Ombudsman which is applicable to the hearing of prisoner complaints; the Prison and Probation Ombudsman hears these complaints. Research on the working of the private prisons by the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University, found that the private sector staff treated prisoners respectfully (Crewe, 2011). A research into the quality of prison life after the transfer from public to the private sector was conducted at the Birmingham prison; it found that prison conditions deteriorated considerably at the Birmingham prison, which led to the ending of the contract and the transfer of the prison to public operation (Liebling, 2015).

In the United States as well the prison administration is categorised into public prisons and private prisons and the prison population is managed by the state through a process of outsourcing the functions that belong to the state to private parties. The United States has a long history of private prisons. Private prisons were first established in the 19th century for the purpose of reducing some expenditure for the state as prison administration was expensive (Austin & Coventry, 2001). The problem with privatisation of prison administration in the United States was that the private companies are working for profit unlike the state prisons whose basic function is management prison population (Austin & Coventry, 2001). As the private companies are working for profit, they make sure through their lobbying that even if there are alternatives to incarceration, these are not adopted so that the expensive detention regime can continue to profit the private prison companies (Gruberg, 2015). Private prisons may also indulge in cost controlling exercises, which compromises the quality of the services provided to the prisoners. Such concerns were raised in the United States, which led to a reorganisation of more public prisons (Austin & Coventry, 2001). In the 1980s, the privatisation of prisons began to take precedence again because of the concerns of increasing public expenditure on prison administration (Austin & Coventry, 2001). However, recent research has shown that the conditions of private prisons is not good and prisoners often live in dismal conditions (Olivares, 2015). In the United States, considerable academic literature has considered the use of private prisons for the purpose of incarceration of the prison population (Mason, 2012; Torrey, 2015; Mason, 2012; Das, 2013). Particular concerns that are noted in this literature includes lack of state’s oversight over private prisons and fundamental objections to privatisation of prisons. Richey (2011) has argued that the use of private prisons is objectionable because of the increasing allegations of nexus between public authorities and private prison companies, which is compromising the prison administration in the United States. Torrey (2015) has argued that lack of oversight into prison administration by the state authorities has led to the conditions of prisons under private companies deteriorating over time. Mason (2012) argues that privatisation of prisons is a matter of concern in the context of the lobbying that is not done by the private companies for influencing law and policy related to prison administration (Mason, 2012). An example of this can be seen in the passage of the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which has led to the increased numbers of people getting incarcerated under an approach of ‘get tough on crime’. An increase in prison population benefits private companies that are making a business out of prison administration. This is the reason why Mason (2012) argues that the system of private prisons ought to be looked into more carefully. Das (2013) writes about immigration detention and the use of private prisons for this purpose with least oversight from the state (Das, 2013).

While private prisons are accepted in both jurisdictions, there is more oversight in the English and Welsh private prisons as compared to the American prisons. Moreover, there are fewer private prisons in England as compared to America (Mason, 2012). In England, there is evidence that if private prisons have not performed well, they could be shut down, as it happened in the case of the Birmingham prison which was reverted to public operations (Liebling, 2015). Such has not been the case in America where despite considerable academic literature on the working of private prisons, not much action has been taken to revert private prisons to public on the basis of performance. An important difference between American and English private prisons is that in the case of latter prisoners can make complaints against the prison administration before the Ombudsman.

Overrepresentation of prisoners from minority communities

One of the concerns regarding the prison system in England and Wales is that it is over-representative of Black and Ethnic Minority prisoners. Recent research has also confirmed that Black and Ethnic Minority communities are significantly overrepresented in the British prisons (Angiolini, 2017; Lammy, 2017). In the United States as well, there is disproportionate representation of African Americans and other minorities in the prisons. African Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, make a significant proportion of the total prison population. African Americans and Hispanic and Latino Americans represent more than 55% of the prison population. Both England and the United States have a concerning record on over representation of the minority communities in its prisons, which has opened both the systems to criticism and allegations of racism within the criminal justice system. The United States has the most prison population per general population in the world (Pemberton, 2013). In that context, when one considers that there is an overrepresentation of racialised minorities in American prisons, it becomes a matter of concern because there is an indication that there is a significantly large number of prisoners who are from racialised minorities. The same problem of overrepresentation of racialised minorities can be seen in English prisons. The following statistics may put the matter in perspective:

“In 2009 the American male prison population was 39 percent black, 21 percent Latino/Hispanic, and 33 percent white, so racialized and ethnic minorities constituted over half of the 1,443,500 men imprisoned… This overrepresentation of racialized and ethnic minorities is even more problematic given the huge scale of imprisonment in the United States, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world... In 2009 there were 502 sentenced prisoners per 100,000 US residents... In England and Wales during 2009, 27 percent of prisoners were from black and minority ethnic groups, of which black people were the largest group at 14 percent ... In 2009 approximately 12.1 percent of the population in England and Wales was from black and minority ethnic groups …, so racialized and ethnic minorities are substantially overrepresented among prisoners” (Pemberton, 2013, p. 154)

The above statistics show a disturbing trend of the criminal justice system being harsher on the members of the Black and Ethnic Minorities; it is an entire process of the criminal justice system which is responsible for this but the ultimate reflection or manifestation of this system is seen in the prisons where the population of Black and Ethnic Minorities become overly represented. This is a problem in both England and Wales and the United States.

Treatment of women prisoners

In both the American as well as English and Welsh prisons, there is a segregation of male and female prisoners (Pemberton, 2013). In both countries, the population of female prisoners is significantly lesser as compared to male prisoners. As of 2009, only 7 percent of prisoners in the United States and 5 percent of prisoners in England and Wales were women (Pemberton, 2013). However, it is a matter of concern that in both the countries, there is an overrepresentation of racialised and ethnic minority women, which indicates that minority women are imprisoned at higher rates than women from white communities (Pemberton, 2013). With regard to transgender prisoners, there are no official statistics in England and Wales as well as the United States because the binary of male and female is used to categorise prisoners and there is no official recognition of transgender prisoners as a separate gender of prison population. Therefore, there are no official figures in any of these prison systems which can indicate the the number or placement of transgender people in prisons. One effect of this in the context of English and American prisons is that it is difficult to analyse the incarceration rates or treatment of transgender prisoners.

Death in police custody

One of the controversial and important areas of concern in the context of the prison system in England and Wales is related to custodial deaths. In this context, race also plays an important role. The fact that out of the total number of people who died in police custody from 1990 to 2018, 14 percent individuals belonged to the Black and Ethnic Minorities has been used to argue that the British prison system suffers from institutional racism, which reflects in the way prisoners from the Black and Ethnic Minorities are treated within British prisons (Inquest, 2018). There are other indicators of how British prisons may have some racism, but custodial deaths remain the most controversial. The controversy related to the deaths in police custody emanate from the fact that there are safeguards and regulations and legislations, which are meant to prohibit behaviour on the part of the authorities that can lead to custodial deaths. Added to that are the discouraging statistics that indicate the link between racism within the prison administration and custodial deaths, which is explained as follows:

“This pattern of mistreatment and ‘over-policing’ is also evident in the use of police violence. The first people to die as a result of the introduction of the long- handled baton and CS gas were black. Deaths in police custody show the same pattern too. Police assaults against black people, or use of excessive force, have been so widespread that an increasing number of civil actions have been taken out against the police, and in particular against the Metropolitan Police” (Beynon & Kushnick, 2009, pp. 232-233).

Beynon and Kushnick (2009) mention a pattern which is visible in the criminal justice system of which prison system is also a part. This pattern reflects the sometimes violent contact between the police and the Black and Ethnic Minorities. Due to the seriousness of this issue, there was an independent review into custodial deaths which led to the Report of the Independent Review of Deaths and Serious Incidents in Police Custody (Angiolini, 2017). The report found that there is a problem of custodial deaths in the institutional places of custody (Angiolini, 2017). Pemberton (2005) has argued that the evidence of custodial deaths within the police custody or the prisons indicate that the “criminal justice system is increasingly being used as a means to remove the ‘unwanted elements’ from our increasingly unequal social system” (p. 28). The case of custodial death of Zahed Mubarek is relevant here because he was attacked in the prison by a known racist; the enquiry into the case found that the killer was a known racist within the prison, but little attempt was made by the prison authorities to prevent the killer from attacking Zahed for his race (Moss, 2006). The Zahed Mubarak case reflects on the conditions in the British prisons that relate to the issue of race and the treatment of prisoners who are racial minorities which may lead to the death of prisoners in custody. In this case, the issue of race and police behaviour became conflated because the police authorities were well aware of his racist opinions and violent tendencies, but they did not take appropriate actions to minimise risk to the deceased (Moss, 2006). Zahed Mubarak died in the Feltham YOI prison, which has had a history of bullying and racism. This is one of the findings of the enquiry into his death, which also showed that the prison authorities had failed to respond to the problems which led to the perpetuation of conditions in which prisoners from the Black and Ethnic Minorities communities were at risk from other prisoners (Moss, 2006). In the United States as well, the issue of custodial or prison deaths is an important issue in the context of the prison system (Ross, 2006). As per the US jails reports, the mortality rate in American prisons stands at 264 per 100,000 prisoners (Heide, 2016). While this may not seem like a significant number, there are questions about methodologies used for coming to the figure of mortality rates in the American prisons (Heide, 2016). The Guardian has reported that there is a significant rise in mortality rates due to suicides, homicides, accidents, drug and alcohol-related events, and untreated medical issues, which raises questions about the treatment of offenders in American prisons and also raises questions about the conditions of American prisons (Sainato, 2019). In recent years, there has been an FBI investigation prompted by 16 deaths in Mississippi jails in a single month in August 2018 (Sainato, 2019).

deaths, or at least has not been as controversially reported as in England. Indeed, the statistics around custodial deaths indicate that more than 50 percent of the prison deaths are of non-Hispanic whites while deaths of African American prisoners account for a third of the total deaths (Noonan, 2016).

Conclusion

To conclude this essay, while there are similar areas of concern with regard to British and American prisons, the former do fare a little better on the account of more oversight on private prisons, and right to prisoners to complain to the Ombudsman against prison authorities. However, both jurisdictions have concerns regarding overrepresentation of racialised minorities in prisons. The issue of custodial deaths of racialised minorities has been more controversial recently in England.

Bibliography

Angiolini, E. (2017). Report of the Independent Review of Deaths and Serious Incidents in Police Custody. London: TSO.

Beynon, H., & Kushnick, L. (2009). Cool Britannia or Cruel Britannia? Racism and New Labour. Socialist Register , 39(39).

Devereaux, S. (2013). England’s “Bloody Code” in Crisis and Transition: Executions at the Old Bailey, 1760–1837 . Journal of the Canadian Historical Association/Revue de la Société historique du Canada, 24(2), 71-113.

Gruberg, S. (2015). How for-profit companies are driving immigration detention policies. Washington: Center for American Progress.

Hitchcock, T. (2012). Renegotiating the bloody code: the Gordon riots and the transformation of popular attitudes to the criminal justice system. In I. Haywood, & J. Seed (Eds.), The Gordon riots: politics, culture and insurrection in late eighteenth-century Britain (pp. 185-204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reed, J. (2003). Mental health care in prisons . The British Journal of Psychiatry, 182(4), 287-288.

Pemberton, S. (2013). Enforcing gender: the constitution of sex and gender in prison regimes. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 39(1), 151-175.

Heide, S. (2016). Deaths in Police Custody. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 57 , 109–114.

Noonan, M. E. (2016). Mortality in State Prisons, 2001-2014 - Statistical Tables . U.S. Department of Justice.

Lammy, D. (2017). The Lammy Review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System. London.

Liebling, A. e. (2015). Birmingham prison: the transition from public to private sector and its impact on staff and prisoner quality of life - a three-year study. NOMS.

Mason, C. ( 2012). Too Good to be True: Private Prisons in America. Washington: The Sentencing Project.

Mennicken, A. (2013). Too Big to Fail and Too Big to Succeed': Accounting and Privatisation in the Prison Service of England and Wales. Financial Accountability & Management , 29(2), 206.

Moss, N. (2006). Comment: Racism and custody deaths in the UK: The Zahid Mubarek inquiry. Social Justice, 33(4), 142.

Pakes, F., & Holt, K. (2017). Crimmigration and the prison: Comparing trends in prison policy and practice in England & Wales and Norway. European Journal of Criminology , 14 (1), 63.

Pemberton, S. (2005). Deaths in Police Custody: The ‘acceptable’consequences of a ‘law and order’society? Outlines: Critical Practice Studies, 7(2), 23-42.

Torrey, P. (2015). Rethinking Immigration's Mandatory Detention Regime: Politics, Profit, and the Meaning of'Custody'. U. Mich. J. L. Reform, 48, 879 .