This essay examines how the terrorist group ISIS are managed within UK prisons, paying particular focus to the issues around radicalisation within mainstream UK prisons.
Terrorists in prison is a highly emotive topic, often filled with myths and profound political controversy, alongside tales of abuse, negligence, risk and mismanagement. Crenshaw (1992) defined the term terrorism as a particular style of political violence, using a small number of victims to influence and scare a wider audience. As many different types of terrorist come under this umbrella, this essay will focus on one type of terrorist, the violent religious extremist group, Isis.
This essay will evaluate the statement, by abolitionists, that prisons are irrational and counterproductive in relation to terrorists. This will be done by firstly evaluating critical issues around management strategies, risk assessment and the reform of imprisoned terrorists. Also, the risk of further radicalisation and de radicalisation will be explored, emphasising on the risk of keeping such prisoners. This essay will then discuss whether these strategies are successful and if not, this essay will then examine if theories of punishment can be applied to the terrorist. Her Majesty’s Prison Service (HMPS) has aims that are crystallised in the HMPS statement ‘Her Majesty’s Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the courts, our duty is to look after them with humanity and help them lead law abiding and useful lives in custody after release. However, HMPS may be able to work towards keeping this promise in regard to other prisoners but, terrorism is different from other types of crime and many terrorists are violent extremists who cause formidable challenges. Their management can pose exceptionally difficult problems in the prison setting.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Radicalisation and the Prison Environment
3. Theories of Punishment and Terrorist Imprisonment
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This study evaluates the abolitionist argument that prisons are irrational and counterproductive environments for dealing with terrorists, focusing specifically on violent religious extremists such as ISIS. It examines the complexities of management, the risks of further radicalization within the prison system, and the applicability of traditional theories of punishment to modern terrorist offenders.
- Evaluation of counter-terrorism management strategies and risk assessment within UK prisons.
- Analysis of the risk of prison-based radicalization versus the necessity of public protection.
- Examination of the efficacy of rehabilitation programmes, including cognitive behavioral therapy and religious counseling.
- Critique of abolitionist perspectives in the context of high-risk, non-rational actors.
Excerpt from the Book
The UK penal system has found itself under increasing pressure to try and develop strategies, policies and interventions to accommodate the growing number of extremist prisoners within its walls (Silke, 2014). Between September 2001 and March 2016, there were 1,150 prisoners charged with terrorist related offences (Grimwood, 2016). The counter Terrorism and Security Act (2015) stated that all public-sector organisations are subject to a duty to prevent people from being drawn to terrorism, however, in 2016 over 1000 prisoners displayed behaviours that raised concerns (Grimwood, 2016). A government report published in October 2015 contained comments made by David Cameron, who described the fight against extremism as one of the greatest struggles of our generation and suggested that prisons must now wake up and accept responsibility for previous years and poor choices (Grimwood, 2016). This responsibility has mainly fallen on the National Offender Management strategy (NOMS), who have developed a series of strategies that can be used regarding these prisoners. The prison service extremist unit has also become a part of NOMS, established in 2007 with the responsibility of developing strategies, policies and procedures appropriate to the risks presented by terrorists (Walker and Lennon, 2015). The first specialist branch to
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter defines terrorism within a political context and outlines the core objective of the essay: evaluating the effectiveness and moral justification of imprisoning violent religious extremists.
2. Radicalisation and the Prison Environment: This section investigates the prison as a potential site for recruitment and the challenges of managing extremist ideology, while challenging the notion that prisons are inevitably 'schools of crime'.
3. Theories of Punishment and Terrorist Imprisonment: This chapter analyzes whether traditional theories like deterrence and incapacitation remain viable when applied to non-rational, ideologically driven actors.
4. Conclusion: The concluding section synthesizes findings to argue that despite critiques, imprisonment remains a vital, practical tool for public safety until more effective alternatives are developed.
Keywords
Terrorism, Radicalisation, Imprisonment, Violent Extremism, Public Safety, Rehabilitation, Counter-Terrorism, Incapacitation, Punishment, HM Prison Service, ISIS, Risk Assessment, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Prison Management, Abolitionism
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this paper?
The paper focuses on the challenges, strategies, and ongoing debates surrounding the imprisonment of violent religious extremists in the United Kingdom.
What are the central themes explored?
Key themes include the balance between public safety and offender reform, the risk of prison-based radicalization, and the evolution of counter-terrorism policies within the penal system.
What is the main research question or goal?
The goal is to evaluate the abolitionist claim that prisons are counterproductive and irrational when dealing with terrorists, versus the necessity of detention for public protection.
Which scientific methods or approaches are utilized?
The work utilizes a literature-based analysis of governmental reports, criminological theories, and existing academic studies regarding counter-terrorism and prison management.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body examines management strategies, risk assessment tools like VERA, rehabilitation programmes such as CBT and religious counseling, and the limitations of applying rational-actor theories to extremists.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Essential keywords include Terrorism, Radicalisation, Imprisonment, Public Safety, Rehabilitation, Incapacitation, and Counter-Terrorism.
Does the author believe prisons are truly 'schools of crime' for terrorists?
The paper suggests this is a debated concept, noting that while risks exist, prisons have modernized strategies to mitigate radicalization, and the 'school of crime' theory is not universally supported by data.
How does the paper differentiate between domestic criminals and terrorists?
The text argues that terrorists are distinct because they target the state and the public with murderous intent, rather than acting solely for personal gain, which complicates traditional approaches to rehabilitation.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Susan Bailey (Autor:in), 2017, Terrorists within UK prison systems, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/413245
