The Ethics of Incarceration in the Modern Criminal Justice System

Introduction

The imprisonment is not only a legal matter but has several social and ethical issues in

questions of fairness, reformation, and inmates’ rights’ infringement. This is because while some

people believe that imprisonment maintains order in the society, others are of the view that it

creates on the systems of oppression. Gilliard (2018) thus notes that in analyzing the effects of

modern imprisonment one has to assess them in terms of lifelong effects. Thus, instead of

helping people become better, confinement works more like a punitive measure that makes

people remain in socially excluded positions. The safety of the public is an issue that cannot be

compromised but there are cases where the laws fail to address the negative effect of a long

sentence. This means that these systems are seen as serving justice whether they do so in real

terms or just perpetuating exclusion.

According to Garland (2019), legal arrangements call for incarceration to restore order;

however, this negatively impacts minorities. The moral argument is that one probed to question

whether a penal system mainly serve as a reformatory objective or retributive one. These ethical

concerns will have to be responded by moving away from the retributive justice model

exclusively towards the restorative justice that will incorporate both values. This paper applies

major ethical theories, including utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and care ethics, to

evaluate the moral legitimacy of contemporary incarceration practices.

Criminal justice systems argue that imprisonment is one of the measures of handling

crime, and though ethical discussions show a more profound aspect of imprisonment. In Gilliard

(2018), the author seeks to establish how imprisonment has changed from being a corrective

measure to being a technique of regulation. Rehabilitation is perhaps more of an anticipation

while punitive policies are the realities of the matter, which hampers the chances of reformation.

Imprisonment for deviance is one of the parts of justice system that aim at reducing criminality

through detainment; however, it has other impacts within its scope. According to Garland (2019),

there is evidence that imprisonment also affects the socially disadvantaged groups making the

disadvantage worse among them. Thus, the question arises in regard to which the modern

punitive systems are more compliance with the principles of moral responsibility or they further

develop the degradation of the system.

The ethical considerations of punitive models can be a claim that they do not effectively

decrease crime or exacerbate social inequality. There is, therefore, a need to review the current

institution with a view of transforming them to rehabilitation institutions while not

compromising the safety of the public. Achieving these goals has to be done preserving human

dignity which is a critical aspect in the society.

There are two ethic models when it comes to imprisonment and these are the abolitionism

and the proportionality. He further went on to say that imprisonment prolongs social inequality

in a society thus making it irrelevant institutions. According to Breems (2019), her critique of the

prison system reforms the prisons into instruments that perpetrate race and economic domination

other than being a solution to the problem of crime. On the other hand, von Hirsch argues on

proportional punishment to mean that measured punishment is a way of emphasizing on justice.

Based on the discussion of the relevant literature, it can be argued that proportionality brings

order in the kind of sentencing so that it does not address punitive measures strictly. The

abolitionist view put forward the question whether it is possible to have justice where there is not

any justice. It also objected to the argument that punitive confinement is good for teaching

people not to misbehave or disobey the law.

What proportionality requires is that ethical imprisonment is relative to changes in

sentencing and rehabilitation programs (Breems, 2019). If measures that contribute to reforming

the aspects of the sentencing to make it proper and lessen the excesses of the carceral system,

then the carceral system is it justified. This is a difficult question for the scholars and

policymakers because it is not clearly defined whether the precariously employed precarious

workers should be reformed or eliminated.

There are two types of evaluation regarding the use of incarceration that focuses on the

right to punish and assess whether it can be made to conform to today’s standards. Although

proportionality provides an assurance of reasonable and fairly proportional measures when

determining the degree of a punishment, the prejudice of the existing systems cannot be

completely eliminated. Other methods of delivering justice include restorative and

transformative justice which do not involve the conventional punitive measures but rather, aims

at fixing the broken relationship between the offender and the victim, and ensuring that the

offender accept responsibility to reduce the chances of repeating the crime again (Surprenant,

2017). As for many of them are convinced that they can ensure citizens’ security and cope with

severe crimes.

In their current article, Bersot and Arrigo (2011) are concerned with the general ethical

dilemma of imprisonment with specific focus on the psychological outcome of imprisonment and

physical chaining of prisoners in prisons. As much as the rate at which incarceration as a form of

punishment has reduced as the main style of correction this simply means that punitive model

correction is still rife in the legal and social systems. These can only be addressed by changing a

certain policy on the penal system and introduce new principles in penology in order that the

justice will be served and the prisoners will be reformed.

Ethical Theories and Incarceration

Utilitarianism

The utilitarian ethical analysis approach considers the issue of incarceration by posing a

question that determines whether the practices of punishment actually minimize the harm, or it

creates more suffering to the people and their communities. In addressing the issue of mass

incarceration, utilitarianism helps emphasize the mass harms that are produced by incarceration

in terms of financial burden on already fragile households, disruption of neighborhoods, and

psychological trauma that outlives release. The effects are intergenerational and decrease

community health and weaken social cohesion.

According to the utilitarian model, it is impossible to morally justify any policies that

cause widespread and foreseeable harm, unless they have obvious overall benefits (McLeod,

2015). Nevertheless, time and again mass incarceration is proven to have no meaningful impact

on crime reduction, but is devastating education, employment, mental health, and community

life. These results indicate that jails are doing more harm than good, which is not in line with the

main utilitarian provision of maximizing social good.

The second utilitarian objection lays emphasis on the social long term costs of

incarceration which in many cases, goes well beyond the offender serving a sentence. Families

suffer emotionally, economically, and lack access to the necessary social resources, which

worsen the overall health of communities that are already struggling with structural disparities

(Nieves, 2023). These evils are not short-term shocks but long-term disorders which resonate

through generations, reducing chances of becoming stable and developing. In utilitarian

perspective, a penal system which systematically inflicts the majority of social ills than social

safety cannot be morally justified. Although the incarceration can be argued as a crime-control

measure, studies indicate that excessive use of punishment destabilizes the community, lowers

trust, and makes them more vulnerable in the long term. In the case of utilitarianism, it is not a

simple act of making sure not to harm an individual but rather the overall good.

Deontology

Deontological ethics also assess moral actions by basing it on duties, rights and respect of

persons as opposed to consequences. In this context, solitary confinement is highly questionable

since it objectifies people as the means of institutional control, as opposed to being a self-

proclaimed being who bears the rights to be treated with inherent dignity (Morgan, 2021). The

excessive seclusion of solitary confinement denies individuals the chance to interact with others,

engage in psychological stimulation, and exercise moral agency. The latter conditions are in

contravention with the Kantian principle according to which all the people should be treated as

ends in themselves and not as mere instruments. Deontology pays attention to the wrongness of

the practice in itself, regardless of whether isolation would prevent misconduct or enhance

institutional order. Hence, although solitary confinement might lead to positive results, it would

still be unethical since it ignores such basic requirements as a duty to respect human dignity and

promotes the right to basic rights.

Deontology

Developing on these issues, deontological logic also questions the prison system that

weakened autonomy, responsibility, and human prosperity. The Kantian ethics also demands that

in order to be punished, one should be treated in a way that does not degrade or dehumanize

them, but the solitary confinement is a routine practice that causes psychological damage, which

is in the complete opposition of these stringent ethical standards. Metz and Metz (2022) affirm

that the strict disciplinary frameworks of prisons tend to focus on control and surveillance over

the respect of persons undermining the moral authority of the institution. People who experience

excessive isolation develop the inability to interact with other people in a meaningful way, which

restricts their potential to become autonomous moral agents.

Virtue Ethics

The virtue ethics evaluates the incarceration by assessing whether punishment helps or

hinders the growth in good moral character. Virtue theory, unlike rules or consequences, poses

the question of whether institutions develop empathy, responsibility, courage and integrity in

those who are the targets of those institutions. According to Roberts and Dagan (2023), Prisons,

in their turn, often promote anger, fear, resentment, and psychological distress, which do not

contribute to meaningful moral development. When a person lives in a place of violence, strict

control and lack of autonomy, he or she finds it hard to acquire the virtues that can enable him or

her to contribute positively in the society. These structural circumstances are opposed to the

intention of punishment as a rehabilitation or moral domain.

As a matter of fact, incarceration tends to strengthen the negative behavior patterns and

increases individual trauma, which reduces the potential of change. In the case of virtue ethics,

the inability to establish conditions which can foster positive character traits speaks volumes of a

significant moral shortcoming in the existing penal system.

Another virtue-ethical approach is focused on the significance of positive surroundings to

develop stable moral habit. Such settings demand space to reflect, practice community and

personal accountability-things that are mostly lacking in punitive prison environments (McLeod,

2015). There is a common routine of exposing people to violence, deprivation, coercive control

in prisons, which are the environments that do not support the formation of ethical characters.

Incarcerated individuals lack chances to foster empathy, collaboration, or self-determination,

which means that they cannot practically acquire moral abilities to succeed in the society after

release. Virtue ethics thus opposes incarceration not just in the sense that it does not correct but

in the sense that it positively interferes with the development of morality. Once the institutions

are spreading vice rather than virtue, they will not be ethically legitimate and cannot fulfill the

claimed rehabilitative purposes. Consequently, the virtue ethicists recommend alternatives that

can really promote moral change.

Care Ethics

Care ethics is critical of incarceration because it underscores the fact that punishment

interferes with the relational networks upon which human well-being is based. It is an ethical

system of interdependence, emotional bond, and obligations that individuals and communities

have towards each other (Raghuram, 2021). By placing them in jail, incarceration deprives

people of their families, children, partners and support systems creating a weak relational bond

that can support them through times of stability and care. Such disturbances are particularly

overwhelming on disadvantaged populations, exacerbating the existence of emotional loss,

financial distress, and social disintegration (Ocen, 2013). Since care ethics considers

relationships to be the most important, it considers imprisonment to be a morally detrimental

practice in that it weakens the key aspects of care that are fundamental to the growth of humans.

The cutting of the relationship links is against the ethical duty of aiding in each other thriving.

Social Contract Theory

The social contract theory is used to assess the ethical soundness of incarceration by

asking the question of whether state punishment embodies equitable and mutual duties between

citizens. The reason why punishment is justified is when the individuals and the governments

share agreed principles of justice. Metz and Metz (2022) go further to state that albeit,

incarceration is ethically dubious when it is applied unequally against the marginalized groups,

and this brings out a failure in the fairness that should be the foundation of justifiable state

power. Such inequalities destroy the confidence in the social contract, and the notion that every

citizen is equal before the law. In case the state does not fulfill its duties, citizens are deprived of

the responsibility of accepting its punitive power. The social contract reasoning, therefore,

questions the prison regimens which infringe on equality, fairness, and responsibility in common

grounds.

Ethical Evaluation of Carceral Institutions

The history of these carceral institutions may be said to have evolved from early punitive

forms to the modern structured prison systems. Many years ago the measure of punishment

included physical retaliation, banishment or imprisonment for a relatively short period. Penal

practice during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries gave emphasis on confinement as a mode

of correction through penitentiary. Ellis (2021) believes that early prisons were aimed to civilize

the discipline through watching and ordering the conduct to ensure that the state retained control

over the vulnerable groups of people. This was in sync with other changes happening in society

such as industrialization as well as expansion of bureaucratization. The use of modern prison

came to existence as others were trying to manage people through order and confinement rather

than flogging. According to Barabas (2022), incarceration expanded the apparatuses of authority

to include legal and political structures or frameworks of discipline. Slowly, the penal systems

became defined institutions which controlled labor, served to perpetuate social stratification and

brutality, and sanctified state interference in the private lives of citizens.

In consideration of the history the use of imprisonment prompts some ethical concern

about the composition of justice. According to Engstrom and Van Ginneken (2022), ethical

reflection is constructed by prison architecture itself to prescribe the lives of those incarcerated.

Knowledge of them is critical for a more expansive analysis of the effects of imprisonment in the

current society.

The traditional function of prisons follows three main objectives which include

disciplinary control and racial segregation and economic management instead of rehabilitation.

The social caste system went unchecked when penitentiaries of old favored marginalized

populations as their primary targets which remains an active practice in modern incarceration.

The development of carceral systems occurred during economic changes which primarily aimed

to discipline populations considered surplus labor according to Ellis (2021). The economic

control of prisons becomes apparent through the utilization of prison labor and prison

privatization which enables profitability to influence penal management systems. The

institutional reality of racism operated during incarceration development to establish

discriminatory racial patterns in legal systems. The research of Elias and Paradies (2021) shows

that prison institutions have maintained discriminatory practices against racial minorities through

biased enforcement and biased sentencing procedures leading to social marginalization. Modern

prisons display structural assumptions which uphold social gaps instead of providing

transformational programs for inmates.

Morgan (2021) explains that legal systems that manage prisons tend to hide their power

dynamics through imprisonment by making it appear as a neutral justice tool. The historical

function of prisons creates ethical problems because it challenges whether corrections achieve

their stated role in public security or maintain unjust institutional practices. According to

Engstrom and Van Ginneken (2022), the designers of ethical prisons need to consider both social

and psychological consequences of incarceration who question whether detention systems truly

serve justice.

Angela Davis examines the history of incarceration starting from slavery and she states

that prisons maintain racial dominance through institutional mechanisms above justice systems.

She reveals the abolition of slavery prompted racial control to shift toward criminalization

combined with forced labor systems. The penal system took over the responsibilities of slavery

according to Barabas (2022) by adopting legal procedures to target Black communities through

discriminatory measures. The convict lease system operated as a permanent method to provide

free labor while preserving racial position control. Modern economic and political systems

maintain racial control through their use of imprisonment as part of the prison-industrial

complex. In the modern incarceration systems, the officially imposed sentencing enhancements

and mandatory minimum laws lead to unfair results against the racial minorities as pointed out

by Elias and Paradies (2021). The approach used by Davis produces ethical issues to do with

neutral treatment in the incarceration system. Based on the information by Morgan (2021),

understanding racist oppression in the past results in the need for punitive system change. Due to

their links with slavery and prison it was possible to define a number of significant ethical issues

concerning the current legitimacy of public institutions. The presented pattern of minorities’

discrimination within the criminal justice system is also inapplicable to the ethical principles of

justice in imprisonment in such cases.

On the other hand, Von Hirsch asserts an opposing approach by suggesting that

proportional punishment should be used as a framework in the framework of penal theory. He

identifies that imprisonment should be proportional to the crime committed and not as a way of

punishing people. As pointed out by Ellis (2021), this principle was developed due to previous

injustices in which punitive measures were applied randomly or highly harsh. Proportional

punishment is intended to restore justice in punishment and make legal consequences of an

individual’s misconduct proportional to the crime committed.

As Engstrom and Van Ginneken (2022, 182) note, ethical prison architecture enshrines

these principles in that the treatment of prisoners and the availability of opportunities for

rehabilitation are also taken into account in carceral environments. Although proportional

punishment seems right in theory, it does not overcome the issues of structural racism inherent in

the penal system. In their discussion, Elias and Paradies (2021) explain how this idea is negated

as those belonging to the marginalized groups are punished more severely for equivalent

offenses. According to Barabas (2022), there is a problem in the fact that von Hirsch does not

consider historical and racial aspects of imprisonment in his model of distributive justice. Thus,

if proportionality cannot address systemic imbalances, then the means’ moral permissibility is in

doubt. Discussions about proportionality are not only relevant to the question of a fair sanction

but to the general question of whether or not imprisonment can be justified within a certain

power relations context.

Although the beginnings of prisons are traced back to early civilizations, the purpose of

prisons begins to pose various questions with regards to modern society. If incarceration was

conceptualised as a tool for oppression and not justice, then the ethicality of the concept is still

uncertain. As stated by Barabas (2022), today’s prisons continue to fulfill the goals of earlier

prisons as places for economic utilization and control of race. This continuity indicates that,

other than prison reform, other conditions in the prison can be of no avail in solving problems.

According to Elias and Paradies (2021), therefore, ethical questions cannot be only about how

the prison should be designed but questions about whether prisons are needed at all. Attempts

aimed at prison tenderization do not dissolve the moral dilemmas entailed by the idea of

imprisonment.

In their view, which mirrors Morgan’s (2021) tenets, efforts to reduce imprisonment

should be made more vigorously where the imprisonment does not play a rehabilitative role. The

continued presence of structural injustices in carceral setting s draws skepticism on the

possibility of such platforms to operate as impartial institutions of justice. As Engstrom & Van

Ginneken (2022) noted, ethical prison architecture should respond to the principles of dignity

and rehabilitation but such reform is a small step if the imprisonment as such is unfair. Hence,

historical construction of carceral institutions brings into question their ethical viability in

contemporary society.

Ethics of the Prison-Industrial Complex

The prison-industrial complex as economic and political institution affects the growth of

the prison system in relation to economics and politics beyond the framework of criminal justice

system. This makes it a prison industrial complex which comprises of private companies,

government agencies, and other financial beneficiaries that have an interest in maintaining

prisons and seeing them expand. Zhang (2024) affirms that modern imprisonment has reformed

rural economy through expanding incarceration as an economic tool. Focusing on this

phenomenon, the notion of racial capitalism should be regarded as crucial, as incarceration

affects the members of minorities and generates income for particular businesses. Specifically,

Nieves (2023) approaches racism as entailing structural economic factors and notes that

incarceration is a way to preserve the racial caste system within the discourse on public safety.

As noted earlier, despite the argument that prisons serve the purpose of rehabilitating offenders

or serving as a deterrent to other individuals, prisons also have a number of economic roles that

blur the objectives of the prisons. The ethical consideration of the incarceration process needs to

address how the financial aspects perpetuate and enhance the penal decisions as opposed to

justice and public safety.

Points of analysis of mass imprisonment reveal that private prisons and prison labor are

major economic systems that perpetrate mass imprisonment. This has led to emergence of for-

profit organizations that run correctional facilities and whose profitability depends on high rates

of imprisonment. In their article published in 2021, Klein and Lima outline that the privatization

of prisons erases the concept of imprisonment transforming it into a business venture where

reduction of costs tends to negatively impact the prisoners. Apart from institutional revenues and

profit, there is a link between the prison-industrial complex and larger economic systems and

economy.

In his paper Shelby (2022) notes that there are pertinent reasons why prison industries are

advantageous to corporations, such as the practice of paying the prisoners wages far below those

of workers outside incarceration and subjecting the prisoners to more or less indentured

servitude. Such an economic dependency on this type of labor maintains those policies that

perpetuate high rates of imprisonment, raising moral questions about a system that incorporates

human incarceration into capital. Such continued reliance of private prison contracts and

corporate partnerships entails that financial considerations tend to come before efforts towards

reformative measures for the prisoners.

Davis also sees the mass incarceration of African Americans as a system of profit and not

crime fighting. She provides evidence that the normal prison as a part of the prison industrial

complex is not efficient in deterring crime as it mainly focuses on its own sustainability through

the system of financing and political influence. In Brusco (2023), the author explains the prison

as a microcosm of economic and environmental injustice, advancing the state’s policies of

oppression while perpetuating socio-economic disparities in the society.

Frauley (2021) builds on this idea, arguing that the growth of imprisonment is connected

with neoliberal doctrines focusing on rationalization of the economy rather than the fairness of

punishment. The process of commodification of imprisonment is not limited to locking people up

and creating a profitable chain, starting from the system of imprisonment with a payment for a

bail bond to surveillance technologies that yield profits through punishment. This social justice

issue remains an ethical issue since prisoners are mainly from the lowest strata of the society. An

approach based on materialism creates doubts about its compliance with justice as a concept in

the penitentiary system.

Punitive measures are not limited to merely a financial model and raise certain ethical

issues of justice, responsibility, and the respect for human person. Policies of sentencing foster

longer imprisonment terms and enhanced punitive approaches, which may be due to the

contribution of financial factors in corrections. According to Klein and Lima (2021), there is a

risk of eroding the goals that justify the system since imprisonment can be financially profitable

for corporations and governments. With revenue taking precedence over rehabilitation, it

becomes easy for the recidivism rate to be high while the systems in place do not support any

serious attempts at rehabilitation.

According to Nieves (2023) commodification entails that incarcerated people are useful

in the economic structures but are also regarded as a nuisance in the society. There is still a close

link between financial goals and ethics mostly in the financial control theory because there are

still harsh penalty measures rather than the reintroduction programs. This means that to achieve

progressive change in relation to decrease punishment, the existing financial foundations of mass

incarceration should be questioned. It also includes not only whether or not these incentives can

be shifted towards more desirable ends that would contribute to penal reform.

Translating punitive economy into a correctional one also means adopting a new

perspective on the efficacy of incarceration. Other schools of thought like restorative, economic

standards, and community re-entry programs may be regarded as those that can be seen to seek

for solutions that are not associated with imprisonment in the effort to spur economic

development. Zhang (2024) stated that education, mental health services and employment

opportunity must be disseminated to the communities of high incarceration rates for they are

some of the factors that contribute to reduction of correctional punitive nature. In the

continuation of the discussion of the subject, Fraulein (2021) notes that it is political and

economic restructuring that are to be viewed as the fundamental aspects of emerging from the

patterns of incarceration driven by profit.

According to Fraulein (2021), imprisonment is part of the film as it questions a paradigm

that sees imprisonment as one of the major economic strategies, while presenting policies that

call for less on imprisonment. Whether such shifts are possible or not are issues, which could

only be answered based on political willingness and restructuring of the economic model of mass

imprisonment. To address the ethical issues of prison industrial complex, the system of justice of

the criminals should reconsider the options for spending and the means of correctional actions

and the methods of correction.

Ethics of Proportional Punishment

Von Hirsh’s principle of proportionality as a principle of sentencing has two aspects,

which act as a check to excessive punitive measures by matching punishment extremes with the

offense extremes. This he argues should not go beyond what the offender deserves but also

should not even fall below the required retributive measure. Ryberg (2021) discusses that,

language means that proportionality serves as an aegis against disproportionality whereby the

punishment is extreme compared to the crime committed. According to Berman (2021), this

principle seeks the government restraint by establishing clear measurements on the manner in

which offenders are punished, thus avoiding making this as a tool of oppression by the state. The

proportionality serves as a moral principle that calls for a response to equate the offender’s

wrongdoing and not extra social or political attributes. Critics responded to the argument

pointing at the possible absence of essential qualities of punishments if the emphasis is put on the

proportionality of the punishment.

In the identical study, Bronsther (2021, p. 321) opposes proportional sentencing in

remarking that it does not consider the rehabilitative or aversive aims over criminal justice; the

author confirms punishment has other purposes as well beyond the retributive theory. The

proportionality in delivering the punishment is methodical, but the ethical issue is not fully

resolved because of concern on fairness and effectiveness. Different legal systems are still in a

quandary of how to address the issue of punishment as a punishment and at the same time

consider the aspects of justice and reform.

Some believe other factors should take precedence over the proportionality principle

which determines punishment based on crime level. Proportionality enhances fairness during

sentencing but it does not explicitly promote prisoner rehabilitation or achieve better recidivism

rates. According to Husak (2022) the implementation of strict proportionality measures could

overlook social factors which lead people to commit crimes including poverty and

discrimination. The practical application of proportional sentencing systems produces more

discrimination instead of less because it results in higher penalties for marginalized populations

following similar criminal acts according to Manikis (2022). Supporters of proportionality base

their premise on the notion that sentencing fairness needs exact crime-to-punishment

relationships to guarantee unbiased court practices. According to Ryberg (2023) the use of

proportionality helps stop severe punishments from arising especially when sentencing practices

remain based on subjective evaluations.

According to Bronsther (2021) proportional punishment represents a restricted guiding

principle because it does not resolve biases that emerge during law enforcement procedures. The

debate focuses on punishment functions because certain people favor retributive justice as their

primary focus and other stakeholders emphasize crime control together with rehabilitation.

Proportional punishment lacks the complexity needed to evaluate justice because it fails to

consider multiple legal and societal influences.

Angela Davis opposes proportionality through her abolitionist stance that considers all

imprisonment excessive. Davis opposes the proportionalist approach because she believes a just

system should never mandate incarceration. Husak (2022) indicates that proportionality theory

relies on the assumption that incarceration represents a valid method to achieve justice but

abolitionism doubts the fundamental ethical basis of imprisonment. The approach of proportional

sentencing seeks to stop unjust punishments according to Berman (2021) yet this method does

not resolve systemic problems within prison systems. Any application of proportionate

sentencing practices continues existing racial and economic inequalities because these

instruments fail to function independently of established social inequalities. The authors Metz

and Metz (2022) propose to examine new punishment methods beyond proportional sentencing

especially when detention fails to yield real public advantages. Through his analysis Davis

prompts society to question the capacity of proportionality to curb excessive punishment in the

criminal justice system. Justice demands an essential redefinition of punishment beyond

sentencing according to proportion because that view is rejected by abolitionists. Its ethical

justification depends on the way in which proportionality systemically addresses matters of

fairness and harm reduction and equality.

Another feature of other types of justice is that they do not assume that justice is best

done proportionately to the crime committed. For instance, restorative justice as a justice model

embraces the reintegration of offenders and the victims into the society without necessarily

offering punishment for an offender’s wrongdoing. According to Metz and Metz (2022),

proportionality negates the victims and perpetrators of crime and the value of justice is merely a

mathematical calculation of crime and retribution. On the other hand, corrective focuses on the

underlying causes of social loss with the aid of conversation, paying others back to make

amends, and with the participate of the community.

Although common proportionality enhances principle structure, Ryberg (2023) opined

that it does not guarantee a fair result especially for the offender who seem to have pulls from a

predisposed disadvantaged background. Likewise, Husak (2022) points out that the other models

of criminal justice such as the rehabilitative justice is more effective in its aim of reformatory

punishment without resultant restitution so as to decrease recidivism. Nevertheless, various

scholars have downplayed the strict proportionality on the basis of circumstances that justice

must consider as well as societal contexts. According to Bronsther (2021), these other

frameworks indicate that proportionality is helpful in preventing unfair harsh penalties but is still

insufficient in solving the moral dilemmas imminent in modern prisons. It can therefore be

suggested that the models of justice that reflect harm and reintegration principles may be more

ethical than that based on proportional punishment alone in the contexts of societies that aim at

reducing structural inequities in the sentencing.

Gender, Intersectionality, and Ethics in Prisons

Women and the LGBTQ+ individuals, in particular, experience tremendous difficulties

within carceral institutions. In the past, the prison system has been set up with male incarceration

as its focus, and typically does not recognize the specific needs of incarcerated women and

gender non-conforming people. Ocen (2013) notes that correctional policies pay no attention to

the distinct vulnerabilities that women, and women from racialized backgrounds particularly,

have and thus, result in overly severe punishments and insufficient rehabilitation opportunities.

Policies that do not take into account the safety and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals raise the risk

of abuse for them, including sexual and solitary confinement (Boppre, 2019). Conditions that

heighten harm rather than promote rehabilitation are established when such protective measures

fail to be implemented. In his (Henne and Troshynski 2019) work, Henne and Troshynski argue

that mainstream correctional strategies perpetuate social inequalities and restrict marginalized

people from reintegration into the community. It is an ethical concern about justice and human

rights around the legitimacy of a system that does not take into consideration the specific

vulnerabilities of certain groups of people through institutional neglect of gendered experiences

of incarceration.

Davis denounces gender based violence in prisons as a total failure on the part of the

carceral system to uphold human dignity as a fundamental perspective. Heiner and Tyson (2017)

explain that she contends that incarcerated women, especially women of color, are

disproportionately victimized by physical or sexual abuse at the hands of correctional staff and

other inmates. Gender-responsive justice has not focused on systemic patterns of violence in

favor of control over protection. Thus, women are more likely to face harm with little or no

means of redress. In Sweet (2016), she draws attention to carceral feminism, policies aimed at

freeing women which actually serve to further entrap them in the carceral system. Increased

surveillance and punitive segregation often intensify the trauma that incarcerated women endure,

rather than protect them nor provide a rehabilitative type of measure. Making a case for the

necessity of feminist care ethics in their justice policies, Raghuram (2021) argue that punitive

models that disproportionately affect women should be left behind. Such system is unethical

because it claims to administer justice while in fact a system that allows gender based violence.

In carceral institutions, race, gender and class intersect to increase the levels of systemic

oppression suffered by those who are not afforded those privileges. That is, women of color,

particularly Black and Indigenous women, are incarcerated at rates that far exceed their

population, in line with a wide range of experiences in social and economic exclusion. As Brown

(2010) note, the cumulative effects of racial and gender discrimination prevent African American

women from having access to the workplace, housing, and healthcare. In its emphasis on the

importance of an intersectional directions in the work of justice, Gueta (2020) highlights that

failure to address these overlapping oppressions act as constricts in the emergence of false and

effective policy reform.

As Henne and Troshynski (2019) tell it, technologies of control impact women from

lower socioeconomic backgrounds much more disproportionately, and they imprison women still

further in cycles of criminalization. Ethical deficiencies in policies that fail to take into

consideration the multiple forms of marginalization that incarcerated women experience at the

intersectional level comprise the ethical deficiencies of carceral oppression. Reform efforts fail

to realize fully if they do not address race, gender, and economic disadvantage all at once.

There are many ethical issues concerning gender-specific incarceration that are not

acknowledged by many correctional policies, hence a failure of applying proper gender

mainstreaming. Using examples, show how the standardized disciplinary practices set up women

for regulation and punishment for trivial offenses that are common, hence reproducing the

normative gender performance. According to Ocen (2013), chaining of the pregnant inmate is a

form of violation of human rights, however such actions continue to be enacted in frameworks

that do not acknowledge the peculiar circumstances of pregnant women behind the bars.

The lack of trauma sensitive practices additionally epitomizes ethical dysfunctions of

carceral structures in prison, which incarcerated women often experience having escaping from

trauma in their pasts (Boppre, 2019). Heiner and Tyson (2017) state that gender-sensitive

approaches are problematic mostly because they fail to reinforce the corrective nature of the

imprisonment system. The lack of consideration of gender-specific issues shows that the entire

criminal justice system is lack of justice. In this sense, ethical correctional practices should

include the principles that account for the specific needs of incarcerated women and people of

LGBTQ+ status to meet their rights and worth.

Corrective measures that take into account gender are effective approaches and methods

in dealing with unfairness in imprisonment while, at the same time, ethical issues arise with these

policies. Policies that cater for female offenders through service delivery aimed at rehabilitation

and non-imprisonment mechanisms are efforts to counter harm of imprisonment. However,

Sweet (2016) states that a large number of such programs are still implemented in a paradigm

that focuses on domination rather than subjectivity. Boppre (2019) discusses intersectional prison

sensitiveness beyond the mere token gestures and more focused on correctional measures aiming

to be rehabilitative instead of simply controlling.

According to Raghuram (2021), there is a perception that the ethicist correctional policies

should take a standpoint of feminist care ethic to guarantee that justice enhances reformation

instead of punishment. Indeed, gender-sensitive measures partly hold some progressive

transformative potentials; nevertheless, these open up within the context of a prison environment.

Ethical reform of prisons is far from a mere change in policies but restructuring that looks at the

inequality that defines the carceral system.

Dissent, Power, and Ethics

Mainly in the past, prisoners served as building blocks of the state power and means of

quelling any attempts of rebellion and free speech. It was becoming common when governments

simply outlawed activism so as to dismiss the movements as maybe rebellious thus a security

threat to the state or disorderly to the society. Those are Selmini and Di Ronco’s (2023) ideas

about incarceration are, according to the authors, incarceration has frequently been employed as

an instrument to decimate political dissent rather than actual criminal behavior. From

incarcerations of revolutionary activists in the colonial period to suppression of protest leaders in

the present times, states have used prisons to neutralize the organized opposition. Martin (2017)

posits that public order policing has many ways of crossing typical criminal law and political

control to democracy by use of forceful laws.

The imprisonment of protesters also deterring people from coming out in large numbers

to protest, this goes against the democratic values of the society. Russell (2020) opines that with

the neoliberalism approach, there has been a broadening of legal constructions of criminality to

embrace non-violent protest. The historical experience of prison for dissidents shows how the

state can deliberate on what is allowed from a political perspective with regards to the public

agenda. Though states’ policymakers use such measures to counter instability, these actions

diminish democratic credibility to skeptics. When political suppression is formalized in prison,

there are moral concerns over the contribution of the prison to maintaining power of the state.

Detention of activists and dissidents is a terribly antipathetic act that is inconsistent with

the concepts of justice, freedom, and political sovereignty. Deposing legal institutions as means

of suppressing political opposition erodes its legitimacy by putting carceral system in place as a

mean of social control. Watts (2019) argues that since the West aims at arresting dissenting

voices it reveals the paradox in liberalism in that while it claims to cherish freedom it seeks to

punish those who defy the system. Bernat and Whyte (2020) explain the process of how

criminalization of activism in Catalonia was used to undermine the separatist movement. In such

circumstances, imprisonment is not a preventive measure against crime but rather an organ of

ideology.

Wood and Fortier (2016) further state that the above legal techniques involve coercion,

this makes people obey the law by force of threats. The measures in question are quite offending

to the principles of democracy as the state interests are privileged over the civic actors and

discussions. Furthermore, it goes beyond individual cases purveying what can be referred as

ethics of suppression of the public. Isolating political activity is paralleled by limitations of

liberties and the erosion of adequate standards for the formation of a more just society. Wood

and Fortier (2016) conclude that the continuing reliance on prisons as the primary method of

neutralizing dissent provokes a number of concerns about the legitimacy of punishment by the

state.

The impropriety or otherwise of state power to imprison dissidents must therefore be

established in accordance to standards of democracy. These measures are often justified as

necessary for maintaining public order since violent sentiments may emerge in large gatherings

as seen across the world in the recent past. According to Martin (2017), public order laws allow

the state to have legal grounds for suppressing dissent under paraphernalia of restoring order.

Cited in the paper by Selmini and Di Ronco (2023), Oberg identified that such reasons often

work as an alibi for eradicating political foes as opposed to tackling relevant threats to security.

According to Russell (2020), with the appearances of Hassan and Hassan in the United

Arab Emirates, it becomes possible to broaden the criminal code with elements connected to acts

of resistance and to present lawful activism as criminal behavior, bordering on security

enforcement and authoritarian control. This brings into question if incarceration in the states can

be seen as tool for social control and not as a proportional measured to punish law breakers.

According to Wood and Fortier (2016), suppression of the opposition through imprisonment

shows that there is a great use of force and that legal procedures are tools of power as opposed to

justice. The ethnic dilemma is besides the ability to assert state power and authority the right to

democratic freedom and liberty in situations where the imprisonment is used to suppress freedom

of the people. Although, these malpractices are legal, people still question their morality

especially in the context of democracy?

Prisons are an anathema to civil liberties and civil liberties organizations especially where

the prison system is used as a tool in advancing political opponents. Democracy includes free

speech or random public participation and protection of the rights of minorities; however,

carceral structures violate these concepts. Bernat and Whyte (2020) noted that selective policing

and selective arrests of activists disenfranchise the community toward legal institutions and

strengthen the perception of legal bias. In his 2019 work, he debates the idea of democracy

embracing both human rights and using the prison as an instrument to punish protest. As Selmini

and Di Ronco (2023) noted, the government’s efforts to limit protest are in line with growing

tendencies toward authoritarianism when sanctions supersede compromise. Thus, the connection

between the levels of democracy and imprisonment is rather intricate, especially in contexts

where powerful states determine what counts as legitimate disobedience.

Russell (2020) still carries this argument that makes her conclude that democratic

institutions are more of a means of oppression rather than empowering the people. Analyzing the

topic of incarceration and civil rights shows that it is a fight between the state and liberty rights.

That way, the issue of whether or not prisons can accord with democratic principles depends on

whether this function is similar to justice or rewards loyalty to the current system.

Abolitionist Ethics vs. Penal Reform

Competing Visions for Justice

Davis and von Hirsch present completely different ethics of incarceration, which are part

of a wider abolitionist versus reformist debate. Prisons should be abolished altogether, and are

nothing but instruments of systemic oppression and not of justice, Davis recounts. In McLeod

(2015), he states that the reform of the system of penal has not addressed the repressing

structural violence in the system of incarceration. Yet, as against of von Hirsch who suggests

retributive stance and believes that proportional punishment is an ethical duty to maintain justice,

Bentham appears to be instrumentalist. Jouet (2023) therefore concludes that his framework has

made incarceration still a justifiable response to crime, if it is applied fairly and proportionally.

For Bell (2021), most reformist take on sentencing policies and correctional conditions

and try to make use of them for improvement, not to destroy the system. Such divergence speaks

to a heart of the issue within criminal justice ethics that concerns whether Italian prisoners may

be morally deserving in any scenario, or on the grounds of the immutability of that flaw does

incarceration itself represent an impermissible sin. These positions help to create the contrast

between contemporary debates on justice and penal ethics.

Non-reformist approaches continued with a decarceration perspective offers ideas for

changing the damaging nature of imprisonment without completely doing away with it.

Decarceration strategies seek to lower the number of inmates through factors that include

sentencing changes, non-prosecution options, and released from prison due to parole. According

to Akbar (2020), incremental reforms refer to reforms that are reformist in addressing mass

incarceration but are aimed at softening its impact while retaining the punitive system. In line

with Foran, Kaba, and Naples-Mitchell (2021), it is found that decarceration measures can

drastically decrease imprisonment but it has a limitation in which it only partially dismantles

punitive legal systems.

According to Scott (2013), though the reformist approaches have offered some positive

changes which would make prison more endurable for some prisoners, such changes do not

challenge the core concept of prison as containing institutions. Some of these reforms may be

ethical if only they are capable of affecting justice practices rather than just tweaking punitive

strategies. Opponents of gradual transformation assert that where imprisonment prevails as the

key element in two systems of justice, justice disparities and abuse will not disappear.

Some abolitionist ethics consider imprisonment as unjust as a concept, thus claiming that

the punitive systems have to be dismantled not improved. The abolitionist position thus rejects

the idea that punishment in general and confinement, in particular, can have legitimate moral

aim. In this case, McLeod (2015) named abolitionism as justice in the community, restorative

justice, and transformative justice. In the same article, Giamberardino (2023) provides a

definition of penal abolitionism as an approach with the goal of eradicating what produces

criminalization and increasing investments in social services, education, and mental health. Bell

(2021) defines abolitionism as the concept that should be opposed to punitive approaches and

practices instead of advocating for carceral solutions that emphasize punishment as a form of

retribution. This perspective is that imprisonment leads to more harm than prevention, produces

more injustice than justice. The abolitionist position allows for a complete overturning of the

current approach. It is because according to public safety that calls for a complete abolishment of

carceral institutions and an adoption of community-based solutions.

There are questions of moral dilemma as to when, whether, how and which form of anti-

slavery radicalism can be reconciled with reformism. This means, some opinionated persons

have stated that by incorporating abolitionist principles into reformist measures, more just

pathways of the penal system could be opened. Jouet (2023) discussed that there are some areas

where penal reform adopted abolitionist concepts as a campaign like the reduction of corporal

punishment and the campaign against capital punishment. For years, welfare has sought to

dismantle punitive structures, which in the opinion of Akbar (2020) reform efforts based on

abolitionist ethics are possible in the long term, even if they cannot get rid of penitentiary

institutions.

However, Foran, Kaba, and Naples-Mitchell (2021) have mentioned that the reforms

have a paradoxical effect as they help in the sustainment of the institution rather than questioning

its existence. Partial reforms may bring about an appearance of a positive change while at the

same time retaining the fundamental aspects of penal control as stated by Scott in the year 2013.

These conflicting ethical systems are not peculiar to this portrayal of the show but present the

essential conflict on whether justice can be done under the current structure or if the system

needs to be overhauled.

As with many other topics, the metrics of analyzing the possibility of abolition and

reform are also of practical and ethical nature. Despite being more tactical, reformist strategies,

therefore, run the risk of reinforcing carceral logics by making them seem less harsh on inmates

while maintaining the structure’s injustice. According to Bell (2021), while there are

transformations in incarceration conditions and the changes in sentencing regimes, they do not

eradicate the social and economic factors that lead to imprisonment.

Giamberardino (2023) suggests that abolition is a longer and more difficult process

compared to traditional justice reforms since it entails the need for political commitment and a

structural investment in the new models of justice. According to McLeod (2015), abolitionist

frameworks outline how the approach of decarceration will happen little by little through the

restructuring of systems as opposed to an all-out removal. Both long-term strategies are

sustainable only if there is a population that is ready to address the ethical dilemma of mass

incarceration and ready to invest in justice systems based on rehabilitation and equality.

Evidently, though abolition has not been realized, its ideas are still pertinent in discussions

regarding prison and criminal justice reform.

Prisons and Rights

The practices within prisons regularly breach basic human rights as they cause physical

and psychological damage to prisoners. The practice of torture together with forced labor and

extended isolated confinement exists in violation of international standards prohibiting cruelty

and degrading procedures. Weisburd (2023) shows that punitive systems incorporate rights

violations as foundational elements which consider deprivation and suffering as natural parts of

imprisonment. Baffour et al. (2024) show that prison overcrowding produces worse abuses

because it creates poor medical services and violent environments within unsanitary facilities

that degrade human dignity. According to Liebling (2011), the moral condition of correctional

institutions depends on their treatment of inmates, yet many prisons exhibit systemic problems

along with excessive punishment and neglect. Using solitary confinement as a means of prison

security creates extensive psychological harm which challenges moral standards of standard

practice.

The point where law meets ethics in incarceration shows contradictory relationships

which develop between prisoner rehabilitation efforts and human rights protections according to

Trestman (2014). Forced labor continues to exist in modern times especially within privatized

prison systems creating problems between exploitation and economic coercion. The prison

system develops practices which allow suffering to become routine while it simultaneously

extends societal economic and social inequalities instead of dealing with underlying social

problems. These institutions reveal structural problems which challenge present day

imprisonment methods despite their ethical failings.

The U.S. prison system regularly violates international human rights standards which

define acceptable treatment of inmates. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the

Treatment of Prisoners or Mandela Rules ban torture and require decent living accommodations

while placing the focus on prisoner rehabilitation instead of punitive strategies. The U.S.

correctional system practices retribution through imprisonment while neglecting the principles

set by Weisburd (2023). The authors report in Baffour et al. (2024) that prison overcrowding

combined with excessive sentencing practices and poor healthcare services produces

environments that breach human rights guarantees.

Ajunwa (2014) investigates the Abu Ghraib facility abuses to show how institutional

breakdowns lead to domestic and international human rights abuses. The author Liebling (2011)

examines how solitary confinement continues in U.S. prisons while pointing out its negative

psychological effects and its position as cruel treatment according to international legal

standards. According to Wahab and Panichelli (2013) the criminal justice system shows unfair

preference toward minority populations which further worsens human rights problems through

race and socioeconomic biases. The disagreement between international standards and current

U.S. incarceration policies creates doubts about the ethical grounds of punishment-based

systems. Current incompatible institutions need reform to value human dignity instead of

focusing only on institutional control.

According Weisburd (2023), the ethical transformation of prisons generates intense

argument about rebuilding these facilities into institutions that protect human rights. Academic

experts maintain that thorough policy modifications involving reduced sentences and better

prison facilities along with stronger operational oversight would help decrease extreme prisoner

mistreatment. Trestman (2014) proposes that implementing rehabilitative models within prison

frameworks would create ethical and legal compliance in prison operations. Weisburd (2023)

analyzes this approach by arguing that detention facilities inherently serve to create pain which

cannot be remedied until significant institutional changes are implemented. Baffour et al. (2024)

show how crowded prisons combined with inadequate resources work against rehabilitation by

keeping harmful structural elements which enable violations of human rights.

According to Liebling (2011) prison moral performance enhancement necessitates both

policy adjustments alongside changes in organizational culture and operational direction.

Evidently, coercive control remains vital in penal institutions thus creating barriers for ethical

prison policies. The implementation of reform encounters major impediments because punitive

perspectives strongly influence the formation of policy. Successful implementation of human

rights-based prisons requires both officers who question current practices and new conceptions

about correctional facilities.

It is where the issue of whether incarceration is familial with human decency at all that

remains unanswered. There are scholars who argue that any version of imprisonment cannot

show any value for the inherent dignity of man since it involves force and negation. According to

Weisburd (2023), punitive confinement rather undermines the spirit of autonomy, rehabilitation

and justice by replicating power relations of harm. The anti-carceral sentiment is most

profoundly present in Ajunwa (2014), where the author notes how shortcomings of a system are

mirrored in the abuses of the prison institutions. As Liebling puts it, it is the suffering as a

punitive practice that forms a core aspect of the carceral regime and for this reason, it can be

considered as ethically problematic. Negative justice contexts are reviewed by Trestman (2014)

as not resulting from crime prevention however, and he calls for specific ethical rehabilitation of

offenders as the model of restorative justice rather than punitive confinement.

Wahab and Panichelli (2013) noted that vulnerable populations are the most affected by

incarceration since this only perpetuates more years of exclusion contrary to the tenets of social

justice. The idea of human rights for prisoners raises an age-old issue of justice or punishment

and moral right of the state. The question as to whether incarceration can ever be compatible

with ethical principles has been one that stands out in most opinions made under sections of

human rights and social justice.

Alternative Justice Models

Instead of using punitive approaches, they aim at bringing harmony within the

community and also ensure that everyone in the community is punished in a way that transforms

them but not put in a cell. This is therefore the idea of restorative justice that provides an

opportunity for offenders and victims as well as members of the public to interact.

Transformative justice contains not only crime roots recognition within the society but also that

individuals of the society and the society itself should take the main responsibility. Caruso

(2020) agrees on the non-retributive justice system as the ethical and efficiency increased

approach towards criminal justice because retribution cannot answer on the root cause of

suffering. In light of the above discussed notion, it emerges that correctional rehabilitation-based

practices on the offenders meet the ethical principles of justice as compared to the punitive

practices.

As per Ward and Salmon (2009), the impact is where such models seek balance in the

sharing of responsibility between the individual and the community while offering alternatives to

incarceration. These approaches derive their ethical basis from the amount of change that they

bring about in the offenders, while the offenders keep off from victimizing other people as well

as achieving the desires of the society. Contemporary societies seek different justice forms in the

process that raises a question to the basic justice and harm reduction principles.

The differences in ethical and rationality between imprisonment punishment and justice

system which gives emphasis on rehabilitation are distinctively divergent. Penal incarceration

reveals the main principle of deterrence and protecting society, however it produces recidivism

and systemic harms. Souryal and Whitehead (2019) have stated that the current form of the penal

system perpetuates further crime rather than eradicating its sources of cause. On the other hand,

the restorative justice involves the use of conference, compensation, and amnesty in a bid to

bring back harmony instead of punishment suffering.

Daly (2013) explains that the restorative justice allows the victims to participate in the

justice process whereby offenders get chances of making reparations and reformation. This goes

further than restorative justice by acknowledging that there are societal factors that cause such

behaviours hence requiring social change in addition to punishment. As per Daly (2013), the

dilemma of these two approaches brings out fundamental issues of the permissibility of

punishment as a measure for crime prevention. The emerging models of justice are a struggling

for human rights as opposed to the retributionist concept of justice putting out a challenge to the

society to consider what should the meaning of the very word justice be and what it should be

done.

Ethical debates have always been focused on the possibility of substituting conventional

punishment by the given type of sentencing. They say that crime prevention through

imprisonment does not deter other related offenses; probation does though. Based on the

concepts of Bagaric (2024) I have read; punitive measures of sentencing do not yield the

intended positive results compared to the rehabilitation strategies. Restorative and transformative

justice are two progressive models that envisage a format of justice to criminal offenders as a

way of making them repent and be answerable for their actions than being jailed.

When Moore & Campbell stated that the role of plea treaties is to find a balance between

proportionality and incentive-based justice, what is not clear is the fact that these approaches are

rooted in the system of carceral. It therefore translates that to what extent that this sort of

measures can fully compliment or even offset traditional punishment depends on the degree to

which it can contribute to the accountability of offenders and at the same time conform with the

society’s safety standards. There are some predications which rise out of none-carceral-based

justice models and desire that serious offences cannot be fairly punished by other forms of

punishment because sometimes incarcerations are still mandatory for dangerous persons. The

debate shows that in the process of justice reform ethical consideration can conflict with practical

reasons as to how the reform should be developed.

The virtuous features of non-carceral justice practices is useful to keep in mind, while the

issues that come with it expose the difficulties in translating such models into practice.

Restorative and transformative justice involve shock, reparative consist of community-building,

and reintegrative; these make the principles behind these more ethical than punitive. Caruso

(2020) maintains that conducting away from retributive punishment prevents the worsening of

the situation and offers hope for rehabilitation thus enhancing the justice system with the vision

of helping in achieving long-term order.

However, the effectiveness of such models depends on the participation of employees

and the willingness to accept the authority given to these models and this cannot always be easily

obtained. Ward and Salmon 2009 state that such justice measures can only be effectively pursued

with much supporting policy in organizations and change in attitudes towards punishment.

Certain categories of cases e.g. cases of violent crimes are likely to be difficult to be managed

under the new models of justice since most victims prefer retribution. The rationale for these

approaches therefore hinges on their prevention functionalities, although the risk of merely

replicating punitive systems makes it a continuous iterative process.

The ability to scale up the use and expansion of the concept as well as its sustainability is

mainly based on institutional commitment and recognition, how members of the public perceive

such models and the law that governs them. Systematic and widespread correction entails

changes in laws of sentencing, devotion to ancillary programs, and alteration of the provincial

prisons system. Souryal and Whitehead (2019) claimed that any effort today has to require

demands for the structural changes in justice systems so that non-carceral changes can include

appropriate alternatives without exacerbating the inequalities. According to Daly (2013), the

sustenance of restorative justice must entail a constant and efficient provision of funds as well as

the involvement of the citizens and legal entities to ensure that they accept other forms of

punishment.

Bagaric (2024) note that when one attempts to scale up such models of reform, there will

always be persons who will resist since they believe in the utility of incarceration. The change

from punitive to the rehabilitative justice system, is an ideological, legal and political process

that takes time. In relation to ethical justice reform, the society has to look for sustainable

approaches to justice other than the current punitive measures. While championing for a different

approach in justice, the following issues should be put into consideration; on safety, on how

resources will be channeled and on the possibility of changing the whole system.

Conclusion

It brings key issues that are not only legal but also economical and human rights issues in

as much as it serves as a means of punishment. According to Coyle et al. (2016), the financial

cost of mass incarceration reduces funding for such tangible social amenities as school funding

or healthcare, thereby worsening systemic injustices. The punitive prison policies are used in the

interest of the economy and the ruling political parties as they do not address the issue of crime.

As Robinson-Sweet (2024) in his article demonstrates, the stories of incarceration portray how

the sociopolitical culture constructs narratives that justify punitive policies that deny human

rights violations. According to Bond (2022), many times ethical issues concerning prisons are

not an issue of priority when it comes to the management of prisons and prison practices that are

based on punitive aims.

Concerns about if present systems are moral can be raised by such violations as solitary

confinement, forced labor, and lack of medical attention in prisons. The mass incarceration

system serves to continually reinstate harm to the society especially the society’s powerless by

denying them their civil liberties or justice. According to Simon (2014), these conflicts of

conscience demonstrate the society’s struggle with the concept of justice, reform and prisons as

states’ tool. To meet these needs it is necessary to deal with the foundation of using punitive

measures and find the solutions that are compatible with the humanization.

The arguments that exist between prison abolitionists and prison reformists are actually

not different from moral and philosophical issues of justice and authority of the state. There are

calls from some scholars who posit that prison per se is unethical since it serves as apparatus of

social control that cannot be reformed while not repeating itself. Coyle et al., (2016) opine that

punitive incarceration is a counterproductive approach that does not seek to address the issue of

social injustices while in the process; it perpetuates it by continuing to lock people that are of a

socially disadvantaged status back into their positions.

Robinson-Sweet’s (2024) work shows how institutional stories contribute to the

construction of incarceration as a reasonable and therefore resistant to reform. In his opinion,

rehabilitation strategies that are developed for implementation frequently aim at enhancing

conditions of the prisons rather than containing deficiencies of the whole carceral system. Simon

(2014) states that legal struggle against mass incarceration only illuminates the structural flaws

in punitive justice and the doubts arise whether we can transform the system at all. A number of

abolitionists provide more reasonable justice measures that do not involve temporal confinement

arguing that incarcerating people is immoral. This struggle and perspective of reform and

abolition underscore the conflict between the need for protection, responsibility, and justice in

carceral spaces.

First of all, there is a necessity to study justice systems to reduce their influence on

people, remove inequalities, and increase responsibility for imprisonment. The incarceration

levels as depicted in the results are high in the minority groups and this shows that social

inequalities need to be corrected for fairness. Coyle 2016 has pointed that mass incarceration

polices has adverse effects for legal minorities and economic minorities since it deepens the

disadvantages. Robinson-Sweet to the future (2024) contended how carceral institutions deal

with their histories and histories that are produced, disseminated and made available to the public

in order to expunge ethical questions.

Reflecting upon Bond (2022), the author discusses how such stories contribute to the

policy and preserve the punitive concepts as a dominant paradigm. Simon (2014) says that mass

incarceration has not contributed to the general safety of the society and is, therefore, replaceable

by other forms of justice to avert re- offending. Reducing recidivism is the best way to put an

end to the practice which entails advocating for progressive not punitive measures that create a

path to positive change for people who went through it. Ethical justice reform must do things that

counter current thinking about punishment, demand for improved justice systems that do not

reinstate harm, and equity.

Thus, it is finally possible to conclude that it is necessary to build the future justice

models as addressing both the principles of rehabilitation and accountability and people’s

dignity. While aiming to punish offenders, restorative justice looks at a way of healing the

crime’s impact by returning some level of justice to the victims and the community of the

offender. According to Robinson-Sweet (2024), documentation plays a role in ethical

considerations in penology by being transparent on reform efforts. According to Bond (2022),

people’s interactions with incarceration issues change their perception towards its concerns, to

support policies that advocate for reintegrating offenders. According to Simon (2014), concerns

and legal actions against mass imprisonment have opened opportunities for change; nevertheless,

organizational barriers are present. In its explanation, Coyle and colleagues (2016) assert that

prison substitutes that focus on reforms and offer schooling, vocational training, and treatment to

eliminate re-offending. Ethical incarceration practices should therefore avoid the aggressive

measures in favor of measures that accept the humanity of all persons in the justice system.

Currently, the justice reform process should go beyond undertaking minor changes and steps,

using radical justice reform strategies that address the principles of the human dignity.

References

Ajunwa, I. (2014). Bad Barrels: An Organizational-Based Analysis of the Human Rights Abuses

at Abu Ghraib Prison. U. Pa. JL & Soc. Change, 17, 75.

Akbar, A. A. (2020). An abolitionist horizon for (police) reform. Calif. L. Rev., 108, 1781.

Baffour, F. D., Francis, A. P., Chong, M. D., & Harris, N. (2024). Prison overcrowding and

harsh conditions: health and human rights concerns to persons in custody, staff, and the

community. Criminal justice and behavior, 51(3), 375-400.

Barabas, C. (2022). Refusal in data ethics: Re-imagining the code beneath the code of

computation in the carceral state. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 8(2), 35-

57.

Bell, M. (2021). Abolition: A new paradigm for reform. Law & Social Inquiry, 46(1), 32-68.

Berman, M. N. (2021). Proportionality, constraint, and culpability. Criminal Law and

Philosophy, 15(3), 373-391.

Bernat, I., & Whyte, D. (2020). Spain must be defended: Explaining the criminalization of

political dissent in Catalonia. State Crime Journal, 9(1), 100-117.

Bersot, H. Y., & Arrigo, B. A. (2011). The ethics of mechanical restraints in prisons and jails: A

preliminary inquiry from psychological jurisprudence. Journal of Forensic Psychology

Practice, 11(2-3), 232-264.

Bond, D. (2022). Changing the Narrative of Incarceration: Ethical Interpretation of Prison

Museums.

Boppre, B. (2019). Improving correctional strategies for women at the margins:

Recommendations for an intersectionally-responsive approach. Corrections, 4(3), 195-

221.

Breems, B. (2019). A Review Essay of Dominique Gilliard's" Rethinking Incarceration". Journal

of Sociology and Christianity, 9(1), 86-98.

Bronsther, J. (2021). The limits of retributivism. New Criminal Law Review, 24(3), 301-325.

Brown, G. (2010). The intersectionality of race, gender, and reentry: Challenges for African-

American women. American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, 1-18.

Brusco, I. (2023). The Prison Industrial Complex: A Microcosm of Environmental Justice As A

Human Rights Issue.

Caruso, G. D. (2020). Justice without retribution: An epistemic argument against retributive

criminal punishment. Neuroethics, 13(1), 13-28.

Coyle, A., Fair, H., Jacobson, J., & Walmsley, R. (2016). Imprisonment worldwide: the current

situation and an alternative future. Policy Press.

Daly, K. (2013). The punishment debate in restorative justice. The SAGE handbook of

punishment and society, 356-374.

Elias, A., & Paradies, Y. (2021). The costs of institutional racism and its ethical implications for

healthcare. Journal of bioethical inquiry, 18(1), 45-58.

Ellis, R. (2021). Prisons as porous institutions. Theory and Society, 50(2), 175-199.

Engstrom, K. V., & Van Ginneken, E. F. (2022). Ethical prison architecture: A systematic

literature review of prison design features related to wellbeing. Space and culture, 25(3),

479-503.

Foran, R., Kaba, M., & Naples-Mitchell, K. (2021). Abolitionist principles for prosecutor

organizing: origins and next steps. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil

Liberties, 16(3), 496-536.

Frauley, J. (2021). Mills and Political Criminology: Making More Out of the Prison-Industrial

Complex. In The Routledge International Handbook of C. Wright Mills Studies (pp. 209-

234). Routledge.

Gacek, J., & Ricciardelli, R. (2020). Rethinking punishment: Prison research and the (un)

intended challenges of institutional research ethics review. In Convict criminology for the

future (pp. 197-210). Routledge.

Garland, A. J. (2019). Rethinking Incarceration.

Giamberardino, A. R. (2023). Penal Abolitionism and Transformative Justice in Brazil. Taylor &

Francis.

Gilliard, D. D. (2018). Rethinking incarceration: Advocating for justice that restores.

InterVarsity Press.

Gueta, K. (2020). Exploring the promise of intersectionality for promoting justice-involved

women’s health research and policy. Health & justice, 8(1), 19.

Heiner, B. T., & Tyson, S. K. (2017). Feminism and the carceral state: Gender-responsive

justice, community accountability, and the epistemology of antiviolence. Feminist

philosophy quarterly, 3(1).

Henne, K., & Troshynski, E. I. (2019). Intersectional criminologies for the contemporary

moment: Crucial questions of power, praxis and technologies of control. Critical

Criminology, 27, 55-71.

Husak, D. (2022). Retributivism and over-punishment. Law and Philosophy, 41(2), 169-191.

Jouet, M. (2023). Death penalty abolitionism from the Enlightenment to modernity. The

American journal of comparative law, 71(1), 46-97.

Klein, D. E., & Lima, J. M. (2021). The prison industrial complex as a commercial determinant

of health. American Journal of Public Health, 111(10), 1750-1752.

Liebling, A. (2011). Moral performance, inhuman and degrading treatment and prison

pain. Punishment & Society, 13(5), 530-550.

Manikis, M. (2022). The Principle of Proportionality in Sentencing: A Dynamic Evolution and

Multiplication of Conceptions. Osgoode Hall LJ, 59, 587.

Martin, G. (2017). Criminalizing dissent: Social movements, public order policing and the

erosion of protest rights. In The Routledge international handbook of criminology and

human rights. Taylor & Francis.

McLeod, A. M. (2015). Prison abolition and grounded justice. UCLA L. Rev., 62, 1156.

Metz, T., & Metz, M. I. (2022). How Much Punishment Is Deserved? Two Alternatives to

Proportionality. Philosophies, 7(2), 25.

Morgan, J. (2021). Lawyering for Abolitionist Movements. Conn. L. Rev., 53, 605.

Nieves, X. (2023). The Unholy Trinity: Racism, Capitalism and Mass Incarceration. The Annual

Review of Criminal Justice Studies, 1(1), 2-10.

Ocen, P. A. (2013). Unshackling intersectionality. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on

Race, 10(2), 471-483.

Raghuram, P. (2021). Race and feminist care ethics: Intersectionality as method. In The

changing ethos of human rights (pp. 66-92). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Roberts, J. V., & Dagan, N. (2023). Rewarding virtue: An ethical defence of plea-based sentence

reductions. Sentencing the Self-Convicted: The Ethics of Pleading Guilty. Oxford: Hart

Publishing, 71-92.

Robinson-Sweet, A. (2024). Caring for archives of incarceration: the ethics of carceral collecting

at university archives. Archivaria, 97(1), 46-80.

Russell, Z. (2020). Resistance and Movement in Neoliberal Society: A Literature Review on the

Criminalisation of Dissent. Spark: Stirling International Journal of Postgraduate

Research, (6).

Ryberg, J. (2021). Retributivism and the proportionality dilemma. Ratio, 34(2), 158-166.

Ryberg, J. (2023). Guilty plea sentencing discounts and retributivism. Sentencing the Self-

Convicted: The Ethics of Pleading Guilty, ed. J Roberts, J Ryberg, 35-50.

Scott, D. (2013). Visualising an abolitionist real utopia: principles, policy and praxis. In Crime,

critique and utopia (pp. 90-113). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Selmini, R., & Di Ronco, A. (2023). The criminalization of dissent and protest. Crime and

Justice, 52(1), 197-231.

Shelby, T. (2022). 6 What’s Wrong with the Prison Industrial Complex?. A Political Economy of

Justice, 167.

Simon, J. (2014). Mass incarceration on trial: A remarkable court decision and the future of

prisons in America. New Press, The.

Souryal, S. S., & Whitehead, J. T. (2019). Ethics in criminal justice: In search of the truth.

Routledge.

Surprenant, C. W. (Ed.). (2017). Rethinking punishment in the era of mass incarceration.

Routledge.

Sweet, E. L. (2016). Carceral feminism: Linking the state, intersectional bodies, and the

dichotomy of place. Dialogues in Human Geography, 6(2), 202-205.

Trestman, R. L. (2014). Ethics, the law, and prisoners: protecting society, changing human

behavior, and protecting human rights. Journal of bioethical inquiry, 11, 311-318.

Wahab, S., & Panichelli, M. (2013). Ethical and human rights issues in coercive interventions

with sex workers. Affilia, 28(4), 344-349.

Ward, T., & Salmon, K. (2009). The ethics of punishment: Correctional practice

implications. Aggression and violent behavior, 14(4), 239-247.

Watts, R. (2019). Criminalizing dissent: The liberal state and the problem of legitimacy.

Routledge.

Weisburd, K. (2023). Rights violations as punishment. Cal. L. Rev., 111, 1305.

Wood, L., & Fortier, C. (2016). Consent, coercion and the criminalization of dissent. A World to

Win; Contemporary Social Movements and Counter-Hegemony, eds. William K. Carroll

and Kanchan Sarker. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Publishing.

Zhang, Y. (2024). Did the prison industrial complex deliver on its promise? Prison proliferation

and employment in rural America. The British Journal of Criminology, 64(1), 229-247.

The Ethics of Incarceration in the Modern Criminal Justice System

Students also viewed