Jail vs. Prison: Differences between Jail and Prison

Jail vs. prison! Many people are sure that jail and prison are exactly the same, so tend to use these terms interchangeably. However, the next time you hear someone mean the same thing but say these two words, don’t hesitate to correct them. In fact, jail vs. prison, though indeed very similar, have their differences.

Jail vs. Prison

JAIL is a confinement facility where people stay while they’re waiting for trial or sentencing. As a general rule, a jail is run by local law enforcement, and there’s only one level of security. On the other hand, a PRISON is a facility for those people who have already received their sentence, and the court has proved them to be criminals. In contrast with jails, prisons are run by state or federal government; some prisons are run by private companies that make an agreement with the government.

Since there are more criminals and some of them can be very dangerous, there are several levels of security. Depending on the crime and some other factors, an appropriate level of security is assigned for each inmate.

Even though this doesn’t make a lot of sense, the conditions in most jails might be a lot worse than in prisons. A jail inmate who won’t be convicted or won’t even go to trial can expect to live in an enclosure that looks more like a cage, while in prisons minimum-security prisoners will get a barrack and won’t even stay behind bars. Jails aren’t obliged to provide inmates with regular exercise and fresh air, while it’s expected from a prison.

Finally, the conditions in any given jail might be even worse because of the tight budget and possible weird policies of the local government. As prisons are supposed to follow the state or the federal system very strictly, any given one won’t differ a lot from all the rest when it comes to living conditions.

Jail vs. Prison Similarity

Still, there’s one important thing that jails and prisons have in common: none of them are legally permitted to take the Eighth Amendment Rights to not be made to endure “cruel and unusual punishment” away from the inmates. Nevertheless, there’s no specific information about which punishment would be considered cruel and unusual, so it’s up to the court to decide on that in every given situation. In fact, imprisonment itself might be considered cruel and unusual, but only if it’s extremely disproportional to the crime that the prisoner committed.

Jail vs. Prison Examples

  • He has been in jail for three months already.
  • There is no justification for holding her in jail.
  • A prisoner has escaped from a jail in northern England.
  • One prison guard was killed when a riot broke out in the jail.
  • The financier was released from jail last week.
  • He faces three years in jail for selling narcotics.
  • I saw a few prisoners run away from the prison.
  • He was sent to prison for a crime that he didn’t commit.
  • Conditions in the prison are said to be appalling.
  • The government has ditched plans to privatise the prison.
  • The thief was adjudged to prison for three years.
  • He went to prison because he murdered an old lady.

Difference between Jail and Prison | Image

Jail vs. PrisonPin

Jail vs. Prison: Difference between Jail and Prison

Last Updated on March 15, 2021

3 thoughts on “Jail vs. Prison: Differences between Jail and Prison”

  1. So jail is reserved for pre-trial only? Since these folks should be considered ” innocent until proven guilty”, shouldn’t the conditions of their incarceration be verified as befitting their condition?
    Also, shouldn’t there be some process allowed so they are allowed to continue employment until the trial?
    After their trial, if they are convicted, they go to prison if the offense was bad enough? It takes way too long for Justice to be served if we have that many people being locked up without a trial for a long time.
    The family dislocation alone is inhumane.

    • I’m no expert, but I believe if you are in jail awaiting trial, it is because they either believe you are a flight risk or that if you were to be released, you may be a danger to the public (e.g., a repeat violent offender that is arrested again). Also, if they set your bail, you couldn’t make it (not everyone is eligible for bail).

      However, in order to arrest someone and put them in jail, the prosecutor needs to have enough evidence on you and they already need to be ready to present their case. At that point in time, it’s just waiting to present that case with whichever trial date was scheduled. So you can’t just grab a random person off the street, declare them a suspect, and lock them up until the trial date. You need to already have enough evidence on them to believe when the case is presented, they will be convicted. Of course, this is easy if an officer directly caught them in the act of committing the crime.

      So the majority of people awaiting trial will eventually be declared guilty and convicted of the crime; I don’t think there are massive amounts of innocent people in there, but there will always be a small number here and there. I agree the conditions should obviously be livable, but jail is supposed to be temporary, so they aren’t required to provide the same recreational/occupational activities that are given to convicted inmates who generally will be there a lot longer.

      As far as continuing your employment, I’m sure the laws vary, but I would think if you are required to await trial and then are later declared “not guilty” that your job can’t hold the fact that you were arrested against you. I’m not sure whether they would be required to hold your position open until after your trial, though. It might depend on the circumstances or state/local laws.

      • It is a harmful assumption that an arrest is evidence of likely guilt/conviction. An arrest only requires probable cause, which means likelier than not: a 51% likelihood of guilt is adequate for a charge. Since 98% of cases are pled out, it’s true that most people who are arrested are likely to be found “guilty” but this is more a function of poverty: lack of bail, lack of property to use as collateral in making bail, inability to pay a private attorney, the need to be released as quickly as possible so as not to lose a job, and so on. This is not because the person would be likely to be convicted on the basis of having been arrested.

        As mentioned above, 98% of those charged will accept a plea bargain for the reasons stated previously. Many charges that aren’t pled out will be dropped or the charges reduced. This is because a prosecutor must meet a much higher standard (beyond a reasonable doubt) in order to convict. In other words, an arrest and indictment don’t equal enough evidence to secure a conviction. And prosecutors don’t like to lose.

        Even after taking only cherry-picked cases to trial, the United States has a conviction rate of 68% – numbers that are abysmal and more than counter the notion that most people who’ve been arrested (are in jail awaiting trial/sentencing) are there because there is enough evidence to convict them.

        This kind of fallacious reasoning, on the part of jurors, accounts for a nonzero percentage of the 68% of convictions prosecutors do manage to secure, including wrongful ones, not to mention the perception of guilt in the court of public opinion. It’s downright harmful and jurors should be told at the start of every trial what the evidentiary standard is for an arrest to be made because it’s wholly unimpressive.


Leave a Comment