Penal Policies Versus Prison Policies: Response to Interview Questions

Part 2

Question:

Comparative Perspective: Based on your experiences and research, how do penal policies in the Philippines compare to those in the United States?

Response:

The question of how penal policies in the Philippines compare to those in the United States is an interesting one. Both countries have distinct historical and structural contexts, yet they share a common reality: despite different rhetorical approaches, both systems have evolved into largely punitive models. The contrast between their stated goals and actual practices highlights the complex interplay between policy, culture, and institutional capacity in shaping criminal justice systems.

In the Philippines, penal policy is often framed around the ideals of rehabilitation and reformation. Officially, the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) emphasize reintegrating inmates into society as productive individuals. This commitment to rehabilitation was symbolized in 1987 when the Bureau of Prisons was renamed the Bureau of Corrections, signifying a shift from mere incarceration to a more correctional approach. On paper, these policies reflect a strong commitment to a rehabilitative justice system.

However, the reality is far different. Despite these legal and constitutional pronouncements, penal policies in the Philippines remain highly punitive due to structural, organizational, and cultural factors. The lack of resources is one of the most glaring issues. Jail and prison facilities are severely overcrowded, understaffed, and underfunded. Many operate on the brink of collapse, struggling to provide even the most basic necessities such as food, healthcare, and sanitation. To cope with these conditions, prison administrators have developed a system of shared governance where inmate leaders play an active role in custodial, rehabilitation, and clerical work. Inmates also provide resources to supplement food, clothing, medicine, and other maintenance needs.

At first glance, this arrangement may seem like a practical solution to an underfunded system, but in reality, it fosters corruption, favoritism, and violence. Some inmates benefit from this system—those who engage in rehabilitation programs or clerical work are able to maintain protective traits from their pre-prison lives. However, others exploit the system, introducing contraband, engaging in drug dealing, and establishing organized crime networks within prison walls. Over time, this leads to a dangerous environment where prison gangs thrive, violence escalates, and inmates either become hardened criminals or victims of power struggles.

Public distrust in the prison system fuels a cycle of penal populism, where politicians and citizens demand harsher penalties and stricter prison conditions. Instead of addressing the root causes of prison mismanagement, the common response is to build more high-security prisons, impose more restrictive regulations, and reduce inmate privileges. This punitive mindset has even led to the rise of demagogues who advocate extrajudicial killings, particularly in the context of the war on drugs. What started as a system that professed rehabilitation has, in practice, become overwhelmingly punitive.

In the United States, the trajectory of penal policy has been different but has led to similar results. From the early 1900s to the 1970s, the U.S. justice system leaned toward rehabilitation. Penal policies emphasized education, vocational training, and reintegration programs. However, this changed dramatically between the 1970s and 1990s as crime rates rose and the public demanded tougher policies. The U.S. government responded with mandatory sentencing laws, three-strikes laws, and truth-in-sentencing policies. These measures removed judicial discretion and imposed harsh penalties, often resulting in life sentences for repeat offenders. In many states, parole was abolished, eliminating the possibility of early release for many inmates, regardless of their rehabilitation progress.

One of the most controversial aspects of this shift was the war on drugs, which led to excessively long prison sentences, especially for non-violent drug offenses. The impact of these policies disproportionately fell on African Americans, who received harsher sentences than their white counterparts for similar crimes. As a result, the U.S. prison population exploded, leading to what is now referred to as the prison boom. Even though crime rates peaked in 1993 and have declined ever since, fear of crime remains high, preventing significant policy shifts. Many punitive laws remain in place, and the U.S. continues to have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

In recent years, however, some states have started adopting evidence-based practices, attempting to differentiate between high-risk and low-risk offenders. Those deemed high-risk are subject to long-term imprisonment and restricted movement, while low-risk offenders are offered rehabilitation opportunities, diversion programs, and alternative sentencing options. This approach signals a slow but noticeable shift away from the purely punitive model of the past, though its implementation remains inconsistent across the country.

Despite their differences in rhetoric, the Philippines and the United States are both punitive in practice. The Philippines officially promotes rehabilitation but operates in a way that exacerbates criminality and violence within its prison system. The U.S., on the other hand, has historically been more explicit in its punitive stance, though it is now exploring ways to incorporate rehabilitation selectively. Both countries struggle with overcrowding, corruption, and the unintended consequences of their penal policies. In the Philippines, penal populism and weak institutional capacity hinder reform, while in the U.S., racial disparities and political resistance make change slow and uneven.

For meaningful reform to take place in either country, policymakers must strike a balance between public safety and rehabilitation. Addressing the root causes of crime, ensuring that penal policies match the system’s capacity, and prioritizing evidence-based reforms are crucial. Without these changes, both the Philippines and the United States will continue to experience cycles of incarceration, recidivism, and systemic failure—proving once again that punitive policies, no matter how strongly advocated, rarely lead to long-term crime reduction.