That's why I said seemly.
Now answer my question or can't you?
Now answer my question or can't you?
Tottenham Riots
- Thread starter Shadey
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1383516#msg1383516 date=1313884472]
And I noticed you didnt answer my question. Have you ever been a victim of a crime. Not some burglary, but one when youve been threatened or terrorised?
[/quote]
Not as such*, but then I didn't see it as relevant, because I'm not making any claims about that sort of a situation such as "these people being terrorised have never had it so easy" or "what are they complaining about, we've got an effective justice system that deals with that" - so I think it's a moot point.
On the other hand I am directly refuting your unsubstantiated claims about prison being soft and overflowing with luxury.
*whilst not the same, I regularly used to get the shit kicked out of me at school by groups of kids that were bigger than me, ostensibly because if racist motives. I also used to endure racist jokes continually - yet knew it would not be worthwhile reporting this to the teachers as it often happened in front of them and they would laugh along with it. Not exactly the same, but in principal the same level of injustice
And I noticed you didnt answer my question. Have you ever been a victim of a crime. Not some burglary, but one when youve been threatened or terrorised?
[/quote]
Not as such*, but then I didn't see it as relevant, because I'm not making any claims about that sort of a situation such as "these people being terrorised have never had it so easy" or "what are they complaining about, we've got an effective justice system that deals with that" - so I think it's a moot point.
On the other hand I am directly refuting your unsubstantiated claims about prison being soft and overflowing with luxury.
*whilst not the same, I regularly used to get the shit kicked out of me at school by groups of kids that were bigger than me, ostensibly because if racist motives. I also used to endure racist jokes continually - yet knew it would not be worthwhile reporting this to the teachers as it often happened in front of them and they would laugh along with it. Not exactly the same, but in principal the same level of injustice
Now I understand and it's not a moot point nor irrelevant.
Your stance and history shows that people in authority are corrupt and justice will not prevail, mine was different and all I see is people getting away with whatever they want because the authoritarian was too lenient.
I'm sorry what happened to you at school but I went through the same shit (I didn't get beaten up, they tried but failed) but I stood up to them and I got in trouble (police got involved and admittedly I did take it to extreme). So the 'criminal' got away with whatever he did.
Your stance and history shows that people in authority are corrupt and justice will not prevail, mine was different and all I see is people getting away with whatever they want because the authoritarian was too lenient.
I'm sorry what happened to you at school but I went through the same shit (I didn't get beaten up, they tried but failed) but I stood up to them and I got in trouble (police got involved and admittedly I did take it to extreme). So the 'criminal' got away with whatever he did.
Hey, this ain't fucking X-Factor, I'm not pulling out the sob story just so I can win - just saying that's the closest kind of experience I've had to what you're describing - which obviously either you or someone close to you has experienced, so your anger is understandable and I can empathise with that . . .
However, I think it's clouding your objectivity on how lenient the system is - as I said, undoubtedly there are cases where justice is not served, but the implicit suggestion that this is an endemic problem and that up and down the country criminals are getting the life of Riley or - even worse getting away with things scot free is something that isn't reflected in the reality.
We have the highest rate of imprisonment in Europe, and despite claims to the contrary they do not all get it easy inside. They do not all get playstations, they do not get mollycoddled.
Yes, there are programmes that try and advance them and make them a better person, and yes there are schemes that reward good behaviour that have incentives - but that's because sometimes the carrot works better than the stick, whilst simultaneously providing a bigger, better stick
However, I think it's clouding your objectivity on how lenient the system is - as I said, undoubtedly there are cases where justice is not served, but the implicit suggestion that this is an endemic problem and that up and down the country criminals are getting the life of Riley or - even worse getting away with things scot free is something that isn't reflected in the reality.
We have the highest rate of imprisonment in Europe, and despite claims to the contrary they do not all get it easy inside. They do not all get playstations, they do not get mollycoddled.
Yes, there are programmes that try and advance them and make them a better person, and yes there are schemes that reward good behaviour that have incentives - but that's because sometimes the carrot works better than the stick, whilst simultaneously providing a bigger, better stick
If you say so, I understand. 😉
Whether prison is good for inmates has been debated forever in criminal justice/law/sociology/psychology circles.
But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that it is good for the victims and their families that the criminals are locked away. And justice is first and foremost meant to be viewed from the victim's perspective, not the criminal's. That is secondary at best.
This will come as a shock to you I'm sure, but you guys could learn a thing or two about how to run a prison from the good Sheriff Arpaio. Heck, most of our prisons could learn the same things.
But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that it is good for the victims and their families that the criminals are locked away. And justice is first and foremost meant to be viewed from the victim's perspective, not the criminal's. That is secondary at best.
This will come as a shock to you I'm sure, but you guys could learn a thing or two about how to run a prison from the good Sheriff Arpaio. Heck, most of our prisons could learn the same things.
Surely a major aspect of it is whether it's good for society?
I mean, it's all well and good the victim feeling good cos the perp got locked up, but if the long term result of that is them getting out and then doing the same thing - or worse - to someone else, then it doesn't really work, does it?
I mean, it's all well and good the victim feeling good cos the perp got locked up, but if the long term result of that is them getting out and then doing the same thing - or worse - to someone else, then it doesn't really work, does it?
I find myself somewhere in the middle of this part of the debate.
On the one hand I have to disagree with the notion that justice is meant to be viewed from the perspective of any person or group of people, whether victim(s) or not - it's not for nothing that the statue of Justice on top of the Old Bailey in London is blindfolded. Personalising the criminal justice process is something I consider not only wrong but dangerously so, as it turns "justice" into a code-word for "revenge". IMO society's interests are indeed (or should be) the overriding consideration.
Having said that, I do think prison needs to include deterrence among its various functions and I'm not satisfied it does so enough currently. I do think there's an argument for saying that the prison regime in the UK has moved too far away from that approach. And here's a point seldom made in this discussion, but one which I think is significant - many criminals who lacked discipline in their upbringing actually come to be grateful for it when it's applied to them, even if they kick against it for a time.
On the one hand I have to disagree with the notion that justice is meant to be viewed from the perspective of any person or group of people, whether victim(s) or not - it's not for nothing that the statue of Justice on top of the Old Bailey in London is blindfolded. Personalising the criminal justice process is something I consider not only wrong but dangerously so, as it turns "justice" into a code-word for "revenge". IMO society's interests are indeed (or should be) the overriding consideration.
Having said that, I do think prison needs to include deterrence among its various functions and I'm not satisfied it does so enough currently. I do think there's an argument for saying that the prison regime in the UK has moved too far away from that approach. And here's a point seldom made in this discussion, but one which I think is significant - many criminals who lacked discipline in their upbringing actually come to be grateful for it when it's applied to them, even if they kick against it for a time.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=46360.msg1383598#msg1383598 date=1313915633] And here's a point seldom made in this discussion, but one which I think is significant - many criminals who lacked discipline in their upbringing actually come to be grateful for it when it's applied to them, even if they kick against it for a time.
[/quote]
That's a good point Jules. You also get that when youngsters join the Armed Services. They usually love the highly disciplined and structured environment that they have not experienced before.
[/quote]
That's a good point Jules. You also get that when youngsters join the Armed Services. They usually love the highly disciplined and structured environment that they have not experienced before.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=46360.msg1383598#msg1383598 date=1313915633]
I find myself somewhere in the middle of this part of the debate.
On the one hand I have to disagree with the notion that justice is meant to be viewed from the perspective of any person or group of people, whether victim(s) or not - it's not for nothing that the statue of Justice on top of the Old Bailey in London is blindfolded. Personalising the criminal justice process is something I consider not only wrong but dangerously so, as it turns "justice" into a code-word for "revenge". IMO society's interests are indeed (or should be) the overriding consideration.
Having said that, I do think prison needs to include deterrence among its various functions and I'm not satisfied it does so enough currently. I do think there's an argument for saying that the prison regime in the UK has moved too far away from that approach. And here's a point seldom made in this discussion, but one which I think is significant - many criminals who lacked discipline in their upbringing actually come to be grateful for it when it's applied to them, even if they kick against it for a time.
[/quote]
They were having a discussion about this on Radio 4 a while ago - and they interviewed 2 young lads who'd both served short prison sentences.
For one of them - a guy who was just your average bloke that had gone out one night, got pissed, got into a fight and beat somebody up - he said it had really turned his life around. Luckily for him his work were understanding and didn't sack him, and it acted as a wake-up call that he'd been going out too much and drinking too heavily. The prison experience had been traumatic, scary and showed him a path he didn't like the look of. It basically gave him a kick up the arse and made him sort his life out - so for that kind of person it can definitely have benefits.
However, the other lad was not your average bloke, he'd had all sorts of problems as a kid, family stuff I think, been kicked out of school, taken into care and all that malarkey. He'd been in and out of trouble throughout his childhood/teenage years and been through the system many times. From being in prison he'd graduate from petty crime to harder stuff, learning the ropes from some of the other people inside and almost being apprenticed in crime.
When he left prison he had to contend with getting a job (impossible), paying rent (unable to), bills (unable to) and generally being a part of a society that rejected him at every turn. Naturally he returned to crime where - not only was he now skilled thanks to all the training he received, he was also accepted. Accepted by the other criminals, but also accepted by a system that took away all of the worries and strife of existence - he had a job, he had a roof, he had two square meals a day . . . he didn't have to worry.
Like you say - the discipline is something they can learn to appreciate. Getting up at a certain time because they have to, eating at a certain time because they have to - for some people prison runs their lives in a way they are incapable of themselves.
Now, it's easy to stand here and say "Well, it's obvious prison is too soft! We should make sure that prison doesn't pay!" - but how? Don't feed them? Make them sleep outside? It's all very well taking this hardline approach, but ultimately you've got to look at what's best for society as a whole and realise that as long as these people are kept on the fringes they will continue to perpetuate the same cycle.
If they can truly be rehabilitated and re-introduced into society so that they can become a contributing part of it and actually feel a part of it - then we're heading down the road of showing them that it pays better to live within the law than outside of it. If all we keep doing them is punishing them for being bad and then ostracising them from society and removing any opportunity to be good, it's just gonna keep going, and going, and going . . .
Yes, I totally agree prison should be a deterrence, but also leading a good life should have an incentive - I'm not saying it isn't there for any of them, and obviously they have to take the vast majority of the responsibility for their own lives, but it's in all our interests to make it as easy as possible for them to be a normal functioning part of society, rather than making it easy - if not inevitable - to return to a life of crime
I find myself somewhere in the middle of this part of the debate.
On the one hand I have to disagree with the notion that justice is meant to be viewed from the perspective of any person or group of people, whether victim(s) or not - it's not for nothing that the statue of Justice on top of the Old Bailey in London is blindfolded. Personalising the criminal justice process is something I consider not only wrong but dangerously so, as it turns "justice" into a code-word for "revenge". IMO society's interests are indeed (or should be) the overriding consideration.
Having said that, I do think prison needs to include deterrence among its various functions and I'm not satisfied it does so enough currently. I do think there's an argument for saying that the prison regime in the UK has moved too far away from that approach. And here's a point seldom made in this discussion, but one which I think is significant - many criminals who lacked discipline in their upbringing actually come to be grateful for it when it's applied to them, even if they kick against it for a time.
[/quote]
They were having a discussion about this on Radio 4 a while ago - and they interviewed 2 young lads who'd both served short prison sentences.
For one of them - a guy who was just your average bloke that had gone out one night, got pissed, got into a fight and beat somebody up - he said it had really turned his life around. Luckily for him his work were understanding and didn't sack him, and it acted as a wake-up call that he'd been going out too much and drinking too heavily. The prison experience had been traumatic, scary and showed him a path he didn't like the look of. It basically gave him a kick up the arse and made him sort his life out - so for that kind of person it can definitely have benefits.
However, the other lad was not your average bloke, he'd had all sorts of problems as a kid, family stuff I think, been kicked out of school, taken into care and all that malarkey. He'd been in and out of trouble throughout his childhood/teenage years and been through the system many times. From being in prison he'd graduate from petty crime to harder stuff, learning the ropes from some of the other people inside and almost being apprenticed in crime.
When he left prison he had to contend with getting a job (impossible), paying rent (unable to), bills (unable to) and generally being a part of a society that rejected him at every turn. Naturally he returned to crime where - not only was he now skilled thanks to all the training he received, he was also accepted. Accepted by the other criminals, but also accepted by a system that took away all of the worries and strife of existence - he had a job, he had a roof, he had two square meals a day . . . he didn't have to worry.
Like you say - the discipline is something they can learn to appreciate. Getting up at a certain time because they have to, eating at a certain time because they have to - for some people prison runs their lives in a way they are incapable of themselves.
Now, it's easy to stand here and say "Well, it's obvious prison is too soft! We should make sure that prison doesn't pay!" - but how? Don't feed them? Make them sleep outside? It's all very well taking this hardline approach, but ultimately you've got to look at what's best for society as a whole and realise that as long as these people are kept on the fringes they will continue to perpetuate the same cycle.
If they can truly be rehabilitated and re-introduced into society so that they can become a contributing part of it and actually feel a part of it - then we're heading down the road of showing them that it pays better to live within the law than outside of it. If all we keep doing them is punishing them for being bad and then ostracising them from society and removing any opportunity to be good, it's just gonna keep going, and going, and going . . .
Yes, I totally agree prison should be a deterrence, but also leading a good life should have an incentive - I'm not saying it isn't there for any of them, and obviously they have to take the vast majority of the responsibility for their own lives, but it's in all our interests to make it as easy as possible for them to be a normal functioning part of society, rather than making it easy - if not inevitable - to return to a life of crime
I don't think I'd directly disagree with any of that. What I'm questioning is whether we have the balance right between deterrence and rehab (and I suspect there's more scope for toughening things up than you imagine, given for example the luxuries such as in-cell DVD players that prisoners can get nowadays). However, I don't underestimate the difficulty in getting that balance right, not least because to some extent different prisoners will need it calibrated differently anyway.
Can get - if they've got privileged status, which only comes about if they've kept their noses clean for at least a month and which is decided on a completely arbitrary basis by the prison officers without any need for justification or explanation. Prisoners can get this status taken away at any time without knowing what they've done wrong - if anything. Someone might just not like the look of their face, or be having a bad day, or be corrupt and doing a favour for one of the other inmates as a way of getting at that person.
Like I said - these little luxuries are both carrot and stick - an incentive to behave well and also something to take away when they're bad - because if they didn't have that, what is there left to take away from somebody who has nothing?
Like I said - these little luxuries are both carrot and stick - an incentive to behave well and also something to take away when they're bad - because if they didn't have that, what is there left to take away from somebody who has nothing?
It is amazing how a simple search on the interent shows a lot of articles from respectable sites that says UK open prisons are too soft and in some places cushy (ie. giving no incentive for the repeating offender to get 'better').
Maybe my internet is bust.
Maybe my internet is bust.
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1383641#msg1383641 date=1313923466]
Like I said - these little luxuries are both carrot and stick - an incentive to behave well and also something to take away when they're bad - because if they didn't have that, what is there left to take away from somebody who has nothing?
[/quote]
You take away their freedom: their freedom to move where they want, eat what they want, read what they want, their freedom to make a decision. Like I said, it's the 'naughty step' for criminals/offenders.
Like I said - these little luxuries are both carrot and stick - an incentive to behave well and also something to take away when they're bad - because if they didn't have that, what is there left to take away from somebody who has nothing?
[/quote]
You take away their freedom: their freedom to move where they want, eat what they want, read what they want, their freedom to make a decision. Like I said, it's the 'naughty step' for criminals/offenders.
Certain sections of the press like to make out that prisons are really soft and are not a punishment. This is of course not true at all. Noone wants to be there, though it is true that some people get used to it - which is human nature really.
I don't think that reoffending is down solely to how harsh or how soft prisons are. Its more to do with what offenders have on the outside. Say you have someone who is basically a full time thief, you send them to prison for a few months at a time now and then, they do their time, get out and what do they have to go back to? Stealing I'd imagine. After all, that is what they do and they still have to feed themselves and their families. This situation would exist no matter how bad a prison was. Its all very well to say that a harsh prison can scare someone into going straight, but if they don't have the skills to do so its not really so easy, and a short sentence is not really long enough to teach someone these skills.
So what do you do with these offenders? Seems to me either a choice of locking them up for longer so they can be taught new skills and be prepared better for a return to society, or giving them a community sentence and basically doing the same thing, without the huge cost to the state. Either way, an ultra harsh prison regime does not help anyone at all does it?
Will a government ever take this approach though? Doubtful, given that any move in the direction of reducing prison sentences is met with accusations of being soft on crime from the opposition and of course the tabloids.
I don't think that reoffending is down solely to how harsh or how soft prisons are. Its more to do with what offenders have on the outside. Say you have someone who is basically a full time thief, you send them to prison for a few months at a time now and then, they do their time, get out and what do they have to go back to? Stealing I'd imagine. After all, that is what they do and they still have to feed themselves and their families. This situation would exist no matter how bad a prison was. Its all very well to say that a harsh prison can scare someone into going straight, but if they don't have the skills to do so its not really so easy, and a short sentence is not really long enough to teach someone these skills.
So what do you do with these offenders? Seems to me either a choice of locking them up for longer so they can be taught new skills and be prepared better for a return to society, or giving them a community sentence and basically doing the same thing, without the huge cost to the state. Either way, an ultra harsh prison regime does not help anyone at all does it?
Will a government ever take this approach though? Doubtful, given that any move in the direction of reducing prison sentences is met with accusations of being soft on crime from the opposition and of course the tabloids.
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1383787#msg1383787 date=1313932103]
It is amazing how a simple search on the interent shows a lot of articles from respectable sites that says UK open prisons are too soft and in some places cushy (ie. giving no incentive for the repeating offender to get 'better').
Maybe my internet is bust.
[/quote]
Firstly I don't think that open prisons should really be anything other than a halfway house that is used as a stepping stone to aid the re-integration of prisoners from proper prison back into society. There it has a role - you can think of it as being a bit like a scuba diver pausing on their ascent to prevent themselves from getting the bends - in the same way a prisoner needs to stagger their ascent back into society, otherwise it could all go a bit wrong.
However, if someone's crime was such that they only need an open prison from the outset, if they did something that was not that serious and they do not pose that much of a threat to society, then I think we should be look at a better way of them serving their penitence.
Secondly, I refer you back to my earlier statement about articles in the media serving a particular agenda. Now, I can't speak about open prisons, but I know that normal prisons do not conform to this popular myth that they are cushy, easy places to live in, where everybody gets looked after and given things and they all get Sky and everyone's having a laugh like they were at boarding school or something.
It's made up bullshit. It's a grim, foreboding, oppressive place. People do not get given Playstations - if you have enhanced privileged status you are allowed a Playstation 1 or 2 - however, the only place that electrical goods can be purchased from is Argos, who - strangely enough - don't stock Playstation 1 and 2s anymore. Therefore the only other way you can get a Playstation is if somebody sends you one - but as a prisoner you are not entitled to have *anybody* send you *anything* other than money. Not even clothes. Not even a change of fucking pants, or new socks.
So, the only way to get a Playstation is to have it sent to you whilst you are on remand, where you are - technically - still an innocent man until your trial comes up and you are sentenced (innocent until proven guilty). So - if you manage not to piss anyone off and get good little boy status whilst on remand, then somebody can send you a Playstation 1 or 2, which if you remain a good little boy and don't piss anyone off you can keep - otherwise it's gone.
So this idea that every prisoner gets a Playstation and all of that shit is, well exactly that - a load of shit.
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1383789#msg1383789 date=1313932260]
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1383641#msg1383641 date=1313923466]
Like I said - these little luxuries are both carrot and stick - an incentive to behave well and also something to take away when they're bad - because if they didn't have that, what is there left to take away from somebody who has nothing?
[/quote]
You take away their freedom: their freedom to move where they want, eat what they want, read what they want, their freedom to make a decision. Like I said, it's the 'naughty step' for criminals/offenders.
[/quote]
They're in prison. You've already done all of that, which was exactly my point - you've already taken away their freedom - freedom to do all of those things. So once you've taken away everything, what's left to take away?
How can you win against somebody with nothing to lose?
It is amazing how a simple search on the interent shows a lot of articles from respectable sites that says UK open prisons are too soft and in some places cushy (ie. giving no incentive for the repeating offender to get 'better').
Maybe my internet is bust.
[/quote]
Firstly I don't think that open prisons should really be anything other than a halfway house that is used as a stepping stone to aid the re-integration of prisoners from proper prison back into society. There it has a role - you can think of it as being a bit like a scuba diver pausing on their ascent to prevent themselves from getting the bends - in the same way a prisoner needs to stagger their ascent back into society, otherwise it could all go a bit wrong.
However, if someone's crime was such that they only need an open prison from the outset, if they did something that was not that serious and they do not pose that much of a threat to society, then I think we should be look at a better way of them serving their penitence.
Secondly, I refer you back to my earlier statement about articles in the media serving a particular agenda. Now, I can't speak about open prisons, but I know that normal prisons do not conform to this popular myth that they are cushy, easy places to live in, where everybody gets looked after and given things and they all get Sky and everyone's having a laugh like they were at boarding school or something.
It's made up bullshit. It's a grim, foreboding, oppressive place. People do not get given Playstations - if you have enhanced privileged status you are allowed a Playstation 1 or 2 - however, the only place that electrical goods can be purchased from is Argos, who - strangely enough - don't stock Playstation 1 and 2s anymore. Therefore the only other way you can get a Playstation is if somebody sends you one - but as a prisoner you are not entitled to have *anybody* send you *anything* other than money. Not even clothes. Not even a change of fucking pants, or new socks.
So, the only way to get a Playstation is to have it sent to you whilst you are on remand, where you are - technically - still an innocent man until your trial comes up and you are sentenced (innocent until proven guilty). So - if you manage not to piss anyone off and get good little boy status whilst on remand, then somebody can send you a Playstation 1 or 2, which if you remain a good little boy and don't piss anyone off you can keep - otherwise it's gone.
So this idea that every prisoner gets a Playstation and all of that shit is, well exactly that - a load of shit.
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1383789#msg1383789 date=1313932260]
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1383641#msg1383641 date=1313923466]
Like I said - these little luxuries are both carrot and stick - an incentive to behave well and also something to take away when they're bad - because if they didn't have that, what is there left to take away from somebody who has nothing?
[/quote]
You take away their freedom: their freedom to move where they want, eat what they want, read what they want, their freedom to make a decision. Like I said, it's the 'naughty step' for criminals/offenders.
[/quote]
They're in prison. You've already done all of that, which was exactly my point - you've already taken away their freedom - freedom to do all of those things. So once you've taken away everything, what's left to take away?
How can you win against somebody with nothing to lose?
[quote author=Richey link=topic=46360.msg1383875#msg1383875 date=1313944122]
Certain sections of the press like to make out that prisons are really soft and are not a punishment. This is of course not true at all. Noone wants to be there, though it is true that some people get used to it - which is human nature really.
I don't think that reoffending is down solely to how harsh or how soft prisons are. Its more to do with what offenders have on the outside. Say you have someone who is basically a full time thief, you send them to prison for a few months at a time now and then, they do their time, get out and what do they have to go back to? Stealing I'd imagine. After all, that is what they do and they still have to feed themselves and their families. This situation would exist no matter how bad a prison was. Its all very well to say that a harsh prison can scare someone into going straight, but if they don't have the skills to do so its not really so easy, and a short sentence is not really long enough to teach someone these skills.
So what do you do with these offenders? Seems to me either a choice of locking them up for longer so they can be taught new skills and be prepared better for a return to society, or giving them a community sentence and basically doing the same thing, without the huge cost to the state. Either way, an ultra harsh prison regime does not help anyone at all does it?
Will a government ever take this approach though? Doubtful, given that any move in the direction of reducing prison sentences is met with accusations of being soft on crime from the opposition and of course the tabloids.
[/quote]
I have to admit I'm finding it very strange to be in such agreement with Richey on this issue
Certain sections of the press like to make out that prisons are really soft and are not a punishment. This is of course not true at all. Noone wants to be there, though it is true that some people get used to it - which is human nature really.
I don't think that reoffending is down solely to how harsh or how soft prisons are. Its more to do with what offenders have on the outside. Say you have someone who is basically a full time thief, you send them to prison for a few months at a time now and then, they do their time, get out and what do they have to go back to? Stealing I'd imagine. After all, that is what they do and they still have to feed themselves and their families. This situation would exist no matter how bad a prison was. Its all very well to say that a harsh prison can scare someone into going straight, but if they don't have the skills to do so its not really so easy, and a short sentence is not really long enough to teach someone these skills.
So what do you do with these offenders? Seems to me either a choice of locking them up for longer so they can be taught new skills and be prepared better for a return to society, or giving them a community sentence and basically doing the same thing, without the huge cost to the state. Either way, an ultra harsh prison regime does not help anyone at all does it?
Will a government ever take this approach though? Doubtful, given that any move in the direction of reducing prison sentences is met with accusations of being soft on crime from the opposition and of course the tabloids.
[/quote]
I have to admit I'm finding it very strange to be in such agreement with Richey on this issue
Do they earn whilst providing a community service? If so, why not give the job to a non-criminal, surely they have more of a right to a job? If they don't earn, how are they gonna feed their families and eat? I know, steal it. From the people they're providing a community service to!
Providing a longer sentence where they learn the skills required to participate in society is probably the best bet. Short term pain in cost for a long term gain to society.
Lets face it a prison will always be at cost to any society unless we decide to kill them (extreme) or send them away (previously Australia but not now, so where?). So it's a case of accepting the cost for a better society.
Providing a longer sentence where they learn the skills required to participate in society is probably the best bet. Short term pain in cost for a long term gain to society.
Lets face it a prison will always be at cost to any society unless we decide to kill them (extreme) or send them away (previously Australia but not now, so where?). So it's a case of accepting the cost for a better society.
So a better society is one in which we lock people up for the sake of it, even though we know that in doing so we're making it more likely that they will re-offend?
And utilising the cheaper, more effective community service option which makes it less likely they will re-offend leads to a worse society?
I don't understand your criteria here - is a better society one in which there's less crime, or more punishment (for the purposes of this argument taking the two as being mutually exclusive)?
And utilising the cheaper, more effective community service option which makes it less likely they will re-offend leads to a worse society?
I don't understand your criteria here - is a better society one in which there's less crime, or more punishment (for the purposes of this argument taking the two as being mutually exclusive)?
Less crime.
Why defend the criminal? Why provide them with jobs via community service when that job could go to a non-criminal? If they are going to re-offend then keep them away from society, if that means prison then so be it. Apply the social training in an area where they can't affect it in a negative way until they acquire the skills to affect it positively.
What's your criteria? Save money?
Why defend the criminal? Why provide them with jobs via community service when that job could go to a non-criminal? If they are going to re-offend then keep them away from society, if that means prison then so be it. Apply the social training in an area where they can't affect it in a negative way until they acquire the skills to affect it positively.
What's your criteria? Save money?
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1383877#msg1383877 date=1313944322]
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1383787#msg1383787 date=1313932103]
It is amazing how a simple search on the interent shows a lot of articles from respectable sites that says UK open prisons are too soft and in some places cushy (ie. giving no incentive for the repeating offender to get 'better').
Maybe my internet is bust.
[/quote]
Firstly I don't think that open prisons should really be anything other than a halfway house that is used as a stepping stone to aid the re-integration of prisoners from proper prison back into society. There it has a role - you can think of it as being a bit like a scuba diver pausing on their ascent to prevent themselves from getting the bends - in the same way a prisoner needs to stagger their ascent back into society, otherwise it could all go a bit wrong.
However, if someone's crime was such that they only need an open prison from the outset, if they did something that was not that serious and they do not pose that much of a threat to society, then I think we should be look at a better way of them serving their penitence.
Secondly, I refer you back to my earlier statement about articles in the media serving a particular agenda. Now, I can't speak about open prisons, but I know that normal prisons do not conform to this popular myth that they are cushy, easy places to live in, where everybody gets looked after and given things and they all get Sky and everyone's having a laugh like they were at boarding school or something.
It's made up bullshit. It's a grim, foreboding, oppressive place. People do not get given Playstations - if you have enhanced privileged status you are allowed a Playstation 1 or 2 - however, the only place that electrical goods can be purchased from is Argos, who - strangely enough - don't stock Playstation 1 and 2s anymore. Therefore the only other way you can get a Playstation is if somebody sends you one - but as a prisoner you are not entitled to have *anybody* send you *anything* other than money. Not even clothes. Not even a change of fucking pants, or new socks.
So, the only way to get a Playstation is to have it sent to you whilst you are on remand, where you are - technically - still an innocent man until your trial comes up and you are sentenced (innocent until proven guilty). So - if you manage not to piss anyone off and get good little boy status whilst on remand, then somebody can send you a Playstation 1 or 2, which if you remain a good little boy and don't piss anyone off you can keep - otherwise it's gone.
So this idea that every prisoner gets a Playstation and all of that shit is, well exactly that - a load of shit.
[/quote]
So you are allowed playstations in prison?
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1383787#msg1383787 date=1313932103]
It is amazing how a simple search on the interent shows a lot of articles from respectable sites that says UK open prisons are too soft and in some places cushy (ie. giving no incentive for the repeating offender to get 'better').
Maybe my internet is bust.
[/quote]
Firstly I don't think that open prisons should really be anything other than a halfway house that is used as a stepping stone to aid the re-integration of prisoners from proper prison back into society. There it has a role - you can think of it as being a bit like a scuba diver pausing on their ascent to prevent themselves from getting the bends - in the same way a prisoner needs to stagger their ascent back into society, otherwise it could all go a bit wrong.
However, if someone's crime was such that they only need an open prison from the outset, if they did something that was not that serious and they do not pose that much of a threat to society, then I think we should be look at a better way of them serving their penitence.
Secondly, I refer you back to my earlier statement about articles in the media serving a particular agenda. Now, I can't speak about open prisons, but I know that normal prisons do not conform to this popular myth that they are cushy, easy places to live in, where everybody gets looked after and given things and they all get Sky and everyone's having a laugh like they were at boarding school or something.
It's made up bullshit. It's a grim, foreboding, oppressive place. People do not get given Playstations - if you have enhanced privileged status you are allowed a Playstation 1 or 2 - however, the only place that electrical goods can be purchased from is Argos, who - strangely enough - don't stock Playstation 1 and 2s anymore. Therefore the only other way you can get a Playstation is if somebody sends you one - but as a prisoner you are not entitled to have *anybody* send you *anything* other than money. Not even clothes. Not even a change of fucking pants, or new socks.
So, the only way to get a Playstation is to have it sent to you whilst you are on remand, where you are - technically - still an innocent man until your trial comes up and you are sentenced (innocent until proven guilty). So - if you manage not to piss anyone off and get good little boy status whilst on remand, then somebody can send you a Playstation 1 or 2, which if you remain a good little boy and don't piss anyone off you can keep - otherwise it's gone.
So this idea that every prisoner gets a Playstation and all of that shit is, well exactly that - a load of shit.
[/quote]
So you are allowed playstations in prison?
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1383885#msg1383885 date=1313945228]
Less crime.
Why defend the criminal? Why provide them with jobs via community service when that job could go to a non-criminal? If they are going to re-offend then keep them away from society, if that means prison then so be it. Apply the social training in an area where they can't affect it in a negative way until they acquire the skills to affect it positively.
What's your criteria? Save money?
[/quote]
Well if your criteria is less crime, why would you choose a short-term prison sentence which is proven to have higher rates of re-offending over the more effective community service?
And I'm not defending the criminal - I'm defending society by choosing the more effective option that gives something back to the community, costs taxpayers less money, and which has a higher likelihood of preventing more crime.
Your attitude seems to be that they're going to re-offend anyway, so we might as well lock them up - but the point you seem to be completely missing or otherwise steadfastly ignoring is that by locking them up we're increasing the likelihood of them re-offending. You're saying defer some kind of training opportunity until they can find a way of using it to contribute to society - this *is* a way of contributing to society. Here. Now.
I'm not sure if you don't get this or are just being dogmatic
Less crime.
Why defend the criminal? Why provide them with jobs via community service when that job could go to a non-criminal? If they are going to re-offend then keep them away from society, if that means prison then so be it. Apply the social training in an area where they can't affect it in a negative way until they acquire the skills to affect it positively.
What's your criteria? Save money?
[/quote]
Well if your criteria is less crime, why would you choose a short-term prison sentence which is proven to have higher rates of re-offending over the more effective community service?
And I'm not defending the criminal - I'm defending society by choosing the more effective option that gives something back to the community, costs taxpayers less money, and which has a higher likelihood of preventing more crime.
Your attitude seems to be that they're going to re-offend anyway, so we might as well lock them up - but the point you seem to be completely missing or otherwise steadfastly ignoring is that by locking them up we're increasing the likelihood of them re-offending. You're saying defer some kind of training opportunity until they can find a way of using it to contribute to society - this *is* a way of contributing to society. Here. Now.
I'm not sure if you don't get this or are just being dogmatic
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1383890#msg1383890 date=1313945788]
So you are allowed playstations in prison?
[/quote]
Read the post
So you are allowed playstations in prison?
[/quote]
Read the post
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1383892#msg1383892 date=1313945991]
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1383890#msg1383890 date=1313945788]
So you are allowed playstations in prison?
[/quote]
Read the post
[/quote]
The post is contradictory. First you say, there isn't any playstations then you say people can send playstations. You also say, if you're a good prisoner, you're allowed to order from Argos a playstation which goes against your comment that a prisoner isn't entitled to a playstation. You also made a point that Argos doesn't stock a playstation.
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Browse/ID72/14419796/c_1/1%7Ccategory_root%7CVideo+games%7C14419738/c_2/2%7C14419738%7CPS3%7C14419785/c_3/3%7Ccat_14419785%7CPS3+consoles%7C14419796.htm
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1383890#msg1383890 date=1313945788]
So you are allowed playstations in prison?
[/quote]
Read the post
[/quote]
The post is contradictory. First you say, there isn't any playstations then you say people can send playstations. You also say, if you're a good prisoner, you're allowed to order from Argos a playstation which goes against your comment that a prisoner isn't entitled to a playstation. You also made a point that Argos doesn't stock a playstation.
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Browse/ID72/14419796/c_1/1%7Ccategory_root%7CVideo+games%7C14419738/c_2/2%7C14419738%7CPS3%7C14419785/c_3/3%7Ccat_14419785%7CPS3+consoles%7C14419796.htm
It's not contradictory at all.
Read the post
Read the post
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1383891#msg1383891 date=1313945953]
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1383885#msg1383885 date=1313945228]
Less crime.
Why defend the criminal? Why provide them with jobs via community service when that job could go to a non-criminal? If they are going to re-offend then keep them away from society, if that means prison then so be it. Apply the social training in an area where they can't affect it in a negative way until they acquire the skills to affect it positively.
What's your criteria? Save money?
[/quote]
Well if your criteria is less crime, why would you choose a short-term prison sentence which is proven to have higher rates of re-offending over the more effective community service?
And I'm not defending the criminal - I'm defending society by choosing the more effective option that gives something back to the community, costs taxpayers less money, and which has a higher likelihood of preventing more crime.
Your attitude seems to be that they're going to re-offend anyway, so we might as well lock them up - but the point you seem to be completely missing or otherwise steadfastly ignoring is that by locking them up we're increasing the likelihood of them re-offending. You're saying defer some kind of training opportunity until they can find a way of using it to contribute to society - this *is* a way of contributing to society. Here. Now.
I'm not sure if you don't get this or are just being dogmatic
[/quote]
I said longer prison term.
[quote author=Red Mullet link=topic=46360.msg1383885#msg1383885 date=1313945228]
Less crime.
Why defend the criminal? Why provide them with jobs via community service when that job could go to a non-criminal? If they are going to re-offend then keep them away from society, if that means prison then so be it. Apply the social training in an area where they can't affect it in a negative way until they acquire the skills to affect it positively.
What's your criteria? Save money?
[/quote]
Well if your criteria is less crime, why would you choose a short-term prison sentence which is proven to have higher rates of re-offending over the more effective community service?
And I'm not defending the criminal - I'm defending society by choosing the more effective option that gives something back to the community, costs taxpayers less money, and which has a higher likelihood of preventing more crime.
Your attitude seems to be that they're going to re-offend anyway, so we might as well lock them up - but the point you seem to be completely missing or otherwise steadfastly ignoring is that by locking them up we're increasing the likelihood of them re-offending. You're saying defer some kind of training opportunity until they can find a way of using it to contribute to society - this *is* a way of contributing to society. Here. Now.
I'm not sure if you don't get this or are just being dogmatic
[/quote]
I said longer prison term.
So your solution to the problem of people on short term prison sentences having a higher re-offending rate than people given community service is simply to give them longer prison sentences?
SR - you seem to have taken an attitude recently whereby anyone that disagrees with you is wrong. You need to tone it down a little (in my opinion).
You're wrong
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1383897#msg1383897 date=1313946909]
So your solution to the problem of people on short term prison sentences having a higher re-offending rate than people given community service is simply to give them longer prison sentences?
[/quote]
In order for them to gain the skills to fit into society. If they can do this quickly then their stay in prison is shorter.
So your solution to the problem of people on short term prison sentences having a higher re-offending rate than people given community service is simply to give them longer prison sentences?
[/quote]
In order for them to gain the skills to fit into society. If they can do this quickly then their stay in prison is shorter.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
