In the current political climate, one of the most controversial public institutions is the prison system. This is largely due to the overabundance of incarcerated people in the USA (716 per 100,000), although Canada boasts a moderate number (149 per 100,000). In Canada specifically, the purpose of the prison system has come under scrutiny, following the recent release of the Vincent Li, also known as Will Baker. Li is infamous for his murder, decapitation and subsequent cannibalization of Tim McLean on a greyhound bus in 2008. After pleading insanity in trial, Li was sent to a mental health centre, and after 8.5 years, was given his full release.

This case brings about the issue of what the purpose of the prison system is, whether it is rehabilitation, punishment, or both. In order to dissuade deviants from a life of crime, as well as prepare criminals for re-entry to society, I will argue that it is necessary to satisfy both criteria in order to have a properly functioning prison system.

In terms of punishment, one must first establish that this is not a god-like punishment for immoral action. Furthermore, punishment is not even necessarily for the offender. Rather, the punishment function of prison systems is a tool that is to be used to dissuade future offenders from committing the same crimes, due to the repercussions. The reasons for such an approach are self-evident. Philosophically, a person may never have absolute free will. This means that although at a point in time a person may ‘choose’ what to do, they are not responsible for the premises that led to them choosing this, be it environmental, genetic, or any combination of factors. Therefore, despite the person choosing their action, the choice of such an action was predetermined by factors beyond their control. This makes punishment for the offender philosophically ungrounded. Rather, punishment serves a consequentialist function. Punishing members of a society for impermissible actions introduces a premise into the minds of those who may otherwise perform the same action, which could possibly dissuade them from following in the previous offender’s footsteps.

Establishing the necessity of punishment on consequentialist grounds, it is necessary to talk about the function of rehabilitation, which unlike punishment, is intended to affect the offender, and not deter others. The function of rehabilitation is to introduce the necessary premises into one’s decision making processes that will in the future, cause them to not commit crimes. While punishment certainly aides in rehabilitation, it is not sufficient. This is extremely visible in Canada, as the re-conviction rate for released offenders is 44%.[1] With such a high rate of recidivism, it seems nonsensical to release inmates who have a one in two chance of re-offending within their first year without taking further precautions.

Rehabilitation can take place in many different forms. Firstly, mental health treatment can likely benefit a large number of offenders, and should be a mandatory requirement to be cleared by a mental health specialist before proceeding further in the release process. Furthermore, due to cultural impact on crime, one must be able to reasonably assume that an offender will not re-immerse themselves into a dangerous community that will increase the probability of their re-offense. This is a difficult measure to enforce, but may be done by finding civilian sponsors who are removed from the negative communities, in order to attempt to limit the immersion into criminal cultures. As well, the culture of the prison system as a whole must be altered in order to stop fostering the same culture that initially led to incarceration. Limiting the integration of inmates who may be affiliated with the same gangs may decrease the chance that they may hold each other accountable to prior gang values. Furthermore, limiting the immediate integration of inmates, and perhaps requiring certain criteria to be fulfilled before their full release to the general prison population may limit the re-introduction of negative culture to the prison system. It is also necessary to provide mandatory positive avenues for inmates to partake in, be it educational, physical, or spiritual. Any or all of these three factors may have a positive influence on inmates, and may decrease the rate of recidivism following their release.

In regards to Vince Li, it appears he satisfactorily completed the rehabilitation requirement, but the public outrage over his release clearly shows that punishment is a necessary aspect as well. The time that one should be imprisoned should be long enough to dissuade others, but not so long as to unnecessarily harm them. A one-year sentence for murder is clearly not sufficient, whereas a five-year sentence for jaywalking is clearly excessive. While not an easy task, there ought to be a minimum sentence length that performs the function of punishment. The length of sentences should as well be dictated by the rehabilitation functions of the system, and offenders ought not to be released until they have satisfactorily been rehabilitated, and the probability of re-offense is low. Each subsequent re-conviction should entail stricter rehabilitation, in order to stop the fostering of career criminals.

[1] https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rcvd-fdffndr/index-en.aspx