“It seems that crime cannot be comprehended from a fixed point of view, its philosophy is rather more difficult than is supposed… Prison and penal servitude do not, of course, reform the criminal; they only punish him and secure society against his further attempt on its space” (Dostoyevsky, “The House of the Dead”).

The criminal seems to be an odd character. On the one hand, it is fair to assume that they value their freedom, to lose it, or to suffer some punishment should certainly cause the criminal some loss. On the other hand, they will likely reap the rewards from their ill conceived bounty, whether this be material wealth, revenge or hatred. A rational being, which is by its own admission every one of us, would become a criminal only if the latter benefit outweighed its cost. So in no sense can we view crime from a ‘fixed point of view’, each person having their own idiosyncrasies and quirks- their own preferences over loss of freedom, and benefits to committing a crime. However, the penal system is to a large extent fixed, it cannot cater for all these idiosyncrasies; however it has (you may be forgiven for not believing this in the current political climate) to serve as a deterrent, to protect the interests of society at large.

Crime is often seen as a fanciful entity, opaque and mysteriously arising out of a misbalance of morals, more than a cold hearted economic decision, which in reality it is. Viewing crime in this light is in my opinion the only explanation for the current penal system in the UK. Lately it seems it seems that the incentives for going out to work honestly for your living have decreased, whilst the motives to commit crimes, or generally to avoid work are on the rise. An honest hardworking man will expect to lose half of his income to tax, while one who does no work at all, possibly committing crimes to make a living- will expect to receive for free, the same standard of living as someone earning £25,000 a year. Should this criminal be caught, they may expect a light sentence in a plushy prison, where they can take degrees and learn new languages for free, something denied to a lot of low income wage-earners. It seems that the current government thinks that criminals can be reformed, and whether or not Dostoyevsky’s sentiments are correct, the effectiveness of the penal system at stopping crime happening in the first place is likely to be lost.

Reformation of character in my opinion should not be the main aim of the penal system. If some criminals can be reformed, then they would likely be reformed only by being incarcerated in prisons with a high quality of life, with options to broaden their horizons. But the cost of this is the serious imbalance it places to the incentives of the economic decision maker. Coupled with the current system of benefits, where having a child is an occupation with a salary of a three bedroom semi-detached house with £200 a week income, I am surprised anyone goes out to work honestly at all. If circumstances are such that the benefits to stealing or murdering somebody are so high, then how can we expect people to lead honest lives?

It seems that the current government is suggesting committing crime is perfectly fine, as they have the naïve notion that they can transform a monster into a law abiding citizen. But the reality of it is most criminals re-offend and notorious criminals never leave prison at all anyway, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds to keep the in jail. Can these moralistic notions really be justified at such a high economic cost? Both the direct cost of the expensive penal system and that arising from the debt to society created by the potential surge in crime. This is especially an issue, as it seems the current penal system isn’t very effective at their aim of reformation.

As of 2007 it cost on average £40,000 a year to send a criminal to jail. This is almost certainly far too much to be spending on supposedly punishing society’s traitors. It is little wonder that out of 1000 crimes committed; on average only 12 of them received punishment. If a prison cell was simply a bed in a 4 metre squared room, locked 23 hours a day, where degrees and courses weren’t provided, it would surely cost a lot less than £40,000 a year – then we could afford to punish more crimes, instead of letting the guilty walk free. It is true they are unlikely to be reformed by this system, should a criminal ever be able to be reformed in the first place, however it is likely they would not commit the crime in the first instance, knowing that prison life wouldn’t be an easy ride, and if they did, it wouldn’t cost an absurd amount to incarcerate them.

Latest figures suggest that recorded acts of crime have decreased by 10%, however I fail to believe this is due to the effectiveness of the current penal system as a deterrent. Given the current economic burden of keeping prisoners in jail, this is at the cost of fewer policemen on the street. The 10% decrease in recorded crimes is as much likely to be reflected by the true reduction in crime, as it is due to the incompetence and inadequacies of the current police service. Even if true levels of crime have decreased, the prisons are still full to capacity and costing millions of pounds a year to law abiding taxpayer’s money. Whichever way you look at it, the current system is just too expensive and not all that effective to warrant it.

So which system would better protect the interests of the economy, and honest citizens? It is hard to judge the effectiveness of past penal systems through history, due to changing standard of living that has occurred through time. The GULAG in Soviet Russia was probably the harshest ever penal system, prisoners kept in an almost concentration camp, where incarceration wasn’t the only punishment. Serious crimes could come with a 20 year imprisonment and 4000 lashes. This system wasn’t terribly effective either, however that doesn’t mean that a harsher penal system wouldn’t reduce crime. Given that standards of living in Soviet Russia were dire, the relative cost to committing a crime weren’t that great. A concentration camp is obviously too extreme, however I think that crime could be reduced by a harsher system, at the very least it would reduce the massive economic burden we currently face. Couple this with a reduction in taxes, a benefit system similar to that of the US and I think people would think a bit harder before committing a criminal offence. It would also serve not to make a mockery out of honest people who get up and go to work in a morning.