Cappai Elena

PUBLIC OPINION ON THE FUNCTION OF PRISON: A RESEARCH STUDY

ELENA CAPPAI

psychologist, Turin, Italy

Introduction

Numerous different, often conflictual, positions are held among jurists, psychologist and legal philosophers regarding the role of incarceration as a punishment. Three principal trends of thought emerge from an analysis of the literature an the subject. A determining factor underlining these positions is whether the function is retributive or preventive or educational/re-educational. There also exists a fourth group of academics who stress the dysfunctionality of incarceration and they advocate the abolition of prison as an institution.

The most up to date analisys on theoretical reflections fail to provide a complete picture of the subject. (Table 1)

Table 1 – Current situation: theory on the function of prisons

FUNCTION	CHARACTERISTICS
RETRIBUTIVE FUNCTION	Pain is "a metajuridical must be that has in itself its own basis" (Ferrajoli, 1997). The base of this conception is "an idea of man as free and therefore responsible for his own behaviour" (Ponti, 1990)
PREVENTIVE FUNCTION	Defines detention as an act of secondary and tertiary prevention whith respect to the illagel act: prison must make detainees aware of their error to discourage re-offending (secondary prevention) and by way of physical constraints prevent them from committing further crimes (tertiary prevention)
EDUCATIONAL RE-EDUCATIONAL FUNCTION	Prison is seen as place where offenders can be presented with a new set of values. "Punishment can not consist of treatment which is contrary to the sense of humanity and must tend to the re-education of the convict" (Constitution, art.27)
ABOLITIONISM (PRISON AS DYSFUNCTION)	The reasons for prison are other than those declared. Prison should be abolished to be replaced another type of sanction

Since this is a very topical subject, an investigation of public opinion on the role of prison, particulary with regard to the current Italian penal situation was considered interesting.

Obiectives of the research study

An investigation into the public opinion about the function of prison punishment by questioning attitudes and convictions regarding prisons.

An analysis of whether the opinions of the interviewees could be reflected by one or more points of view identified in the theoretical reflection.

Sample

70 people

Sex: 35 men and 35 women Age: 18-57 years old

The sample was not selected in a random way. It was stratified regarding sex and age and data on educational level and professions were noted (Tables 2 and 3)

Table 2 – Sample broken down according to age, sex and educational level

		age	educational level
			Middle School certificate		High School certificate		Degree		other		tot	to ta l
				tot		tot		tot		tot
	men	18-25	3		4						7
		26-33	2		5						7
		34-41	4		1		2				7
s		42-49	2		2		3				7
e		50-57	3		3		1				7
x	tot			14		15		6				35

	Women	18-25	2		4		1				7
		26-33			5		1		1		7
		34-41	3		3		1				7
		42-49	2		3		2				7
		50-57	4		2				1		7
	tot			11		17		5		2		35
	total			25		32		11		2		70

Table 3 – Sample broken down according to age, sex and profession

		age	Profession
			Self employed		employed		student		housewife		pensioner		tot	to ta l
				tot		tot		tot		tot		tot
	Men	18-25	3		1		3						7
		26-33	1		6								7
		34-41	1		6								7
s		42-49	1		6								7
e		50-57	2		5								7
x	Tot			8		24		3						35

	Women	18-25	1		2		4						7
		26-33	2		4				1				7
		34-41			6				1				7
		42-49	1		3				1		2		7
		50-57	1		2				4				7
	Tot			5		17		4		7		2		35
	Total			13		41		7		7		7		70

Methodology

Questionnaire self-administrered.

The survey was based on 36 items organised in a Likert scale.

The items of the Likert scale werw formulated in an attempt to represent the functions of punishment, theoretically analysed, in a homogeneous way. Some control items on the coherence of the interviewees’ answers were also included. Four diggerent versiona of the Likert scale were then drawn up – obtained by a random mixture of the items, to avoid the effects of mutual influence between statements.

In addition interviewees were requested to answer an open question about the relation they perceived between the grade eo severity of punishement and its respective usefulness and effectiveness.

Results

The results obtained from such an exploratory research study can be expressed only as descriptive data.

The finctions of punishment which seem to best reflect the opinions of those interviewed are those of a preventive and educational/re-educational nature.

As far as the preventive function is concerned, the sample expressed agreement with both special positive as well as negative versions. The results of the investigation did not produce sufficient data to determine whether or not interviewees perceive a significant difference between the two versions.

Table 4 – The preventive function

This result is illustrated in Table 4, which shows a collocation of 67,1% (47 soggetti su 70) of those interviewed in agreement as regards the item "Punishing someone who has committed a crime serves as a deterrent against re-offendering".

The sample interviewed proved to be very sensitive to the idea of the educational function, this was frequently expressed and discussed in the open ended question as well as with the interviewer conducting the survey, after distribution of the questionnaire.

The highest percentages of agreement were recorded for the idea of a re-educational penalty. This is understood as a way of socialisation (or re-socialisation) in line with the values and rules of a civil society. 68,6% (48 out of 70) of the sample expressed agreement with the statement " The aim of a prison sentence is to teach the offender the values of a civil society". In addition, the idea of whole society sharing responsibility for teaching young people a culture of lawfulness was widely held. (Tables 5 and 6)

Table 5 – Social responsibility Table 6 – Educational function

agreement

Less extremely polarised responses were registered for the retributive function of prison punishment did not appear to represent the opinion of the sample questioned .

The items referring to the hypothesis of replacing a term of detention with a different type of sanction obtained a high level of agreement.

Nevertheless the type of replacement possible remains to be investigated (wherether a more lenient or more severe sanction).

The open answers produced additional topics such as:

- a warranty concern, connected to the fact that not all offenders are punished and it seems that people who have committed no crimes do not feel "safe" about being wrongly imprisoned;

- the idea that since sentences are not fully served they may be ineffective;

- a penality with an educational function, seen as an ideal, but wich does not form part of the current Italian penal system.

Discussion

The questionnaire was self-administred. Some of the sample experienced difficulty with this, claiming that they would have preferred to have it administred by the researchers.

The interviewees were very interested in the subject under investigation. Despite initial hesitation when requested to participate in the research study, once assured of the strict animosity and the use of the data collected, participants showed subsequent strong interest in the subject matter.

The majority of them expressed a desire to undertake deeper discussion of the subject, to find wider outlets to express their opinions on the topics included in the study. On a significant number of occasions the researcher was also involved in lively discussions wich ensued after completion of the questionnaire.

It emerged that some of the respondents found the language used in the formilation of the question perplex, complex and not easily comprehensible. Should this instrument be used again, it is essential that it be revised from a linguistic point of view to ensure clarity.

Conclusions

Even if the study does not respect scientific criteria and it does not allow us to make generalisations about the results obtained, it is possible to note that the people interviewed see prison as a necessary tool for civil co-existence in a society of individuals.

It seems that the aim of penal punishment must be the prevention of crime with dual-purpose: on the one hand re-education of offenders with the aim of re-introducing them to civil society, on the other educating people, particulary younger member of society to be law-abiding citizens.

However, it is clear that further research using more appropriate scientific methodology is required.

References

CAVALLO, M. (1993), (a cura di), Punire perché. L’esperienza punitiva in famiglia, a scuola, in istituto, in tribunale, in carcere: profili giuridici e psicologici, Franco Angeli, Milano.

CATTANEO, M. A. (1990), Pena diritto e dignità umana. Saggio sulla filosofia del diritto penale, Giappichelli, Torino.

FERRAJOLI, L. (1997), Diritto e ragione. Teoria del garantismo penale, Laterza, Bari.