HOW CAN WE IMPROVE OUR PRISONS SYSTEM?

 HOW CAN WE IMPROVE OUR PRISONS SYSTEM?

Improving the prison system is one of the most difficult challenges in modern governance. Yet global experience increasingly points to one clear lesson: systems that focus on rehabilitation, not punishment, produce safer societies. Our goal should be to reform — not to take revenge.

Let us start with reality. Many prisons today are overcrowded, under-resourced, and in some cases inhumane. Overcrowding strips people of dignity and turns prisons into breeding grounds for violence, disease, and despair. And yes, even prisoners have human rights. When the state deprives a person of liberty, it also assumes responsibility for that person’s safety, health, and eventual reintegration into society.

So how do we fix this?

First, we must rethink the very purpose of incarceration. Countries like Norway follow the “normalization” principle: life inside prison should resemble life outside as much as possible, except for the loss of freedom. Private rooms instead of cages, communal kitchens instead of food slots, education instead of idle time. Prison officers are trained not just as guards, but as mentors. The result? Norway’s recidivism rate is about 20 percent — far lower than systems built on punishment alone. This is not softness. It is about being effective.

Second, rehabilitation must begin on Day One. Preparation for release should not start a month before freedom — it should start the moment someone enters the system. Every inmate should have an individualized plan addressing the roots of their offense: lack of education, addiction, mental illness, or trauma. Studies show that inmates who participate in education and skills training are far less likely to reoffend. Teaching a person how to work, cope, and think differently is far cheaper than locking them up again.

Third, mental health and substance abuse must be treated as public health issues, not moral failures. A large percentage of prisoners suffer from untreated mental illness or addiction. Locking them up without treatment only guarantees repeat offenses. Therapy, counseling, and medication-assisted treatment are not luxuries — they are crime-prevention tools.

Fourth, we must strengthen family and community ties. Isolation fuels recidivism. Prisons should encourage family contact through accessible visitation and affordable communication. We should also expand prison farms and “open prison” models for low-risk offenders. These allow inmates to work, learn skills, and maintain social bonds while serving their sentences. Allowing families to join inmates in prison farms can decongest urban prisons and prepare everyone for life after release.

Fifth, we need alternatives to incarceration for minor and non-violent offenses. Community service, probation, electronic monitoring, and restorative justice programs reduce prison populations without sacrificing public safety. Juvenile offenders should be placed in rehabilitation centers, not adult prisons. Parole and early conditional release should be expanded for those who demonstrate good behavior and genuine reform — with strict supervision and clear standards.

We should also look beyond prison walls. Policies such as “ban the box” in employment, transitional housing, and job placement programs reduce the chances that former inmates fall back into crime simply because society shuts its doors on them.

Consider the Netherlands. Starting around 2009, it began closing prisons — not because crime disappeared, but because fewer people were being locked up and fewer were coming back. Shorter sentences, fewer pretrial detentions, and a strong emphasis on rehabilitation worked. At one point, the country even rented empty prison space to other nations. Imagine that: shutting down prisons because you ran out of inmates.

This challenges a deeply held belief — that safety comes from harsher sentences and fuller prisons. Sometimes the toughest system is not the one that works best. The real measure of justice is not how many people we imprison, but how many never need to return.

Prison reform is not easy. It requires investment, trained staff, coordination across agencies, and political courage. But the payoff is immense: safer communities, lower costs, and a justice system that actually works.

Maybe the right question is not how many prisons we can build — but how many we can one day close.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 11-28-2026

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES?

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES? When we talk about the crime rate in the Philippines, we often assume that the figures we see are accurate reflections of reality. But have we ever paused to ask—how exactly is the crime rate computed? Where does this data come from, and how reliable is it? The computation of the crime rate in the Philippines is officially handled by the Philippine National Police (PNP). The formula itself is straightforward: Crime Rate = (Total Reported Crimes / Total Population) x 100,000 This simple equation gives us the number of crimes per 100,000 people, allowing for fair comparison across regions and time periods. However, the reality behind these numbers is more complex than it appears. Data from the Ground The foundation of our national crime rate is empirical data collected at the grassroots level—from individual police stations scattered across the country. Every reported crime is logged in local police blotters, forming the buil...
Read more

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS Dear Mr. President: May I ask who is going to be the arbiter or referee whenever there are overlaps in functions between two or more government agencies? I imagine that there would be no problem if these agencies would just cooperate and collaborate with each other, but what if they are unable to settle their differences and they would just end up throwing blame at each other or finger pointing at each other? Allow me to cite some examples. Who is supposed to take the lead in waste to energy projects? Is it supposed to be the DENR that is supposed to handle waste? Or is it supposed to be the DOE that is supposed to handle energy generation? Or is it supposed to be the DILG since it is the one that could direct or influence the waste to energy projects of LGUs? Who is supposed to take the lead in producing and promoting the use of biofuels? Is it supposed to be the DA, since the production of biofuels is supposed to be all about planting biofuel ...
Read more

LOCALIZED FREE AMBULANCE SERVICES

LOCALIZED FREE AMBULANCE SERVICES As it is supposed to be, anyone in the Philippines should be able to dial 911, and a telephone operator should be able to dispatch fire, rescue, ambulance and police (FRAP) units as soon as possible, based on acceptable response times. I invented the FRAP acronym for easy recall, and I hope it sticks, if there is no other alternative. Unfortunately, due to a mixture of technical and political reasons, the Philippines has not adopted 911 as a national number, because some LGUs would rather use their own three-digit numbers such as 117 and 168. I actually proposed a technical solution to that problem, but it was not adopted either. For whatever it is worth, my solution is to install a call forwarding system that could route all calls to a central operator, regardless of what number is dialed. It is very sad for me to know that up to now, even if our country is already over one hundred years old, there are still many LGUs that do not have fire trucks. it ...
Read more