Sociology Plus
Decarceration Policies Definition
Decarceration policies refer to a deliberate societal shift away from using prisons as the primary mechanism for punishing wrongdoers, advocating instead for the implementation of alternative measures within the community. This movement seeks to redirect focus and resources towards community-based interventions rather than institutional incarceration.
Origins and Movement
The impetus for decarceration has roots in earlier searches for alternatives to imprisonment, dating back to the nineteenth century. However, the organised movement gained significant traction in the 1960s as part of a broader critique of institutional responses to crime and deviancy, aligning with what Stan Cohen termed the “destructuring impulse.” This shift was closely associated with radical penal lobbies and abolitionist movements across Scandinavia, Western Europe, and North America.
Historical Context and Criticism
From the 1960s through the 1980s, particularly in the United States and Europe, a new social policy emerged aimed at reducing the number of individuals held in long-term institutional care for mental health. Critics argued that institutionalisation fostered dependency and depression, leading R. Barton to term this phenomenon ‘institutional neurosis’. Furthermore, economic critiques highlighted incarceration as an expensive and inefficient system.
Theoretical Implications
Decarceration is linked to broader theoretical concepts regarding social control. Andrew Scull suggested that the extension of community treatment in place of prisons reflects Michel Foucault’s notion of “dispersed discipline,” indicating that wider nets of social control are created rather than imprisonment being displaced by community measures. Critics have also pointed to unintended consequences, such as the ‘revolving door syndrome’, where a release from institutional settings is followed by regular re-admissions.
Practical Measures and Outcomes
Decarceration policies encompass various practical strategies designed to manage behaviour outside of prison, including electronic tagging measures, probation orders, community service work, and the establishment of halfway houses. Despite these efforts, critics note that ‘prison-centricity’ persists in political thought, as global prison rates continue to rise. Recent developments, such as home curfews and electronic monitoring, illustrate a blurring of boundaries between community liberty and institutional confinement.