Punishment in the Penal System

IrishMark · 28-08-2011 7:26pm #1

Hi,
My father has recently declared that he prioritises punishment over rehabilitation as the greatest aim of the penal system. I don't agree with this at all. I don't see how it is pragmatic or useful to society. What are the thoughts of those here?

29-08-2011 9:19am

Hi OP, this is probably better suited over here

29-08-2011 9:50am

TBH, I think there's simply one more aspect. Removal from society.

I'd be inclined to believe in all three. Punishment must exist to reinborce that when you do something wrong (i.e. breaking the law), the person involved will receive some form of punishment. For some people its the only way that they learn... I know that it worked for me whilst growing up and taught me many aspects of right and wrong. For others... conventional punishment isnt effective.. and other focuses must be implemented.

Rehabilitation must be part of any system but it cannot exist on its own. Honestly, I don't believe that an effective format of rehabilitation has been found that applies to the majority of criminals. Sure, it works for some, but its rather limited. Repeat offenders is a rather harsh sign that the current and past systems have not worked. So, while rehabilitalion must be considered extremely important for any system... new and better ways must be found.

Lastly, removal from society is part of punishment but also serves an important role. There are those that refuse to reform either from rehabilitation or punishment. For those people, incarceration is necessary.

Its amazing the difference in living standards around the world. I've lived in many western and eastern countries and its shocking the differences in the type of crime commonly found around the world. While the manner in which countries like China treat their criminals is extremely harsh and often inhumane I can't really argue too much with results. Living here is extremely safer than living in many western countries. In my own hometown in Ireland there is a very strong problem with youth gangs randomly beating up people just for the fun of it, and very little that the Gardai can do (even though they know who they are).

I find that the western mentality towards criminals is a bit too limited. being humane is a worthy goal but fankly it hasn't worked. I'm not suggesting that the other side of harsh punishment works either but something in the middle needs to be found. And fast.

IrishMark · 30-08-2011 12:54pm

Thanks klaz. That's certainly an interesting reply. A couple of questions, though: Do you consider removal from society a punishment in itself? Whilst I agree that not everybody can be rehabiitated and that there are some habitual criminals, do you think the greatest goal of a penal system should be to reduce as far as is possible the proportion which may re-offend? If not, then what good what a penal system serve?

Sleepy · 30-08-2011 2:40pm

For many crimes (e.g. non-payment of fines, possession of illegal substances) it's simply punishment.
For others, particularly violent crimes, it's primary purpose is to protect society from the individuals that would damage it by keeping them quarantined until it's believed they've reformed.

The problem, imho, comes in determining length of sentences: if someone is sentenced to 4 years is this because we deem that the length of time that it takes for society to consider them safe enough to be re-included? Or because it's a "harsh enough" punishment for their crime.

The rate of re-offending in this country would suggest that either:

sentences are too short
not enough is done to ensure the rehabilitation of the offender
some people are unreformable and should be either permanently locked away or terminated (whichever is cheaper to the state would be my preference in the imaginary situation where these people could be identified without a reasonable doubt, since that's not ever likely to be possible it would have to be the former)

30-08-2011 3:34pm

IrishMark wrote: »

Thanks klaz. That's certainly an interesting reply. A couple of questions, though: Do you consider removal from society a punishment in itself?

It depends what we're talking about here. If we're including those prisons where inmates can call home, surf the internet, regular visitors, then no I don't think removal is a punishment. I'm living in China. My family live in Ireland. Its not that much trouble to hook up a webcam and talk for an hour and costs relatively little.

Removal from society should mean just that. No contact beyond yearly visits. No doubt I'll be slated by those campaigning for prisoner rights, but if a prisoner can communicate almost as easily with family/friends as they did prior to their conviction, then theyre not being removed.

On the other hand, I do see solitary confinement as being a punishment. I'd favor something similar except where prisoners only have access to a very limited number of other prisoners, guards, and extremely limited access (monitored) to the outside world.

Whilst I agree that not everybody can be rehabiitated and that there are some habitual criminals, do you think the greatest goal of a penal system should be to reduce as far as is possible the proportion which may re-offend? If not, then what good what a penal system serve?

I have never broken any of the serious laws... including I suppose lesser offenses like theft. There has been no need, and while I have had a hard life at times, I could find legal alternatives to live. The law is there to protect society. Not protect those who break the law.

The removal of convicted criminals from society to prevent them from continuing their trade is the pimary role. Rehabilitation is part of it, but as long as neither the death penalty or mind-altering procedures are available, repeat offenders need to be kept behind bars. Its not perfect, but I prefer them in prison than walking the streets.

There have been many times in my life where breaking the law would have made life easier. I could be a lot wealthier, and I probably would have gottena away with it.. Fear of incraceration, and the removal of my "innocent" legal status stopped me. But obeying the law and societies standards are not supposed to be easy. You just do it.

Modern penal services don't really work. Its just that there is no better alternative.

MrPudding · 30-08-2011 3:35pm

IrishMark wrote: »

Thanks klaz. That's certainly an interesting reply. A couple of questions, though: Do you consider removal from society a punishment in itself?

The removal from society aspect of imprisonment has a dual side to it, IMO. Firstly, removal from society is, I believe, a punishment in and of itself. Secondly there is a protection of society aspect of it, removing a “dangerous” person from the streets.

Whole life sentences are all about punishment and do not take into account a person’s ability to be rehabilitated. Of course the European Court of Human Rights has recently spoke about whole life sentences and it seems likely that they will change slightly, and then there will be a possibility for a person to get out if there are not longer likely to be a threat. Something tells me that won’t happen too often though…

IrishMark wrote: »

Whilst I agree that not everybody can be rehabiitated and that there are some habitual criminals, do you think the greatest goal of a penal system should be to reduce as far as is possible the proportion which may re-offend? If not, then what good what a penal system serve?

I think I would agree. Where there is the possibility for rehabilitation then I think that should be one of the main concerns.

I was having a conversation with a mate about the recent riots over here in the UK. To me that really brings home the difficulty in trying to set the right balance of punishment / rehabilitation / protection of society. Whilst I do not condone criminal behaviour, generally, my experience is that a lot of people who find themselves on the wrong end of the criminal justice system never had a chance. This does sometime make me rather uncomfortable with the punishment aspect of things, and causes me a bit of a conflict with my belief in personal responsibility.

The mate I was arguing with believed that the rioters had good reason to riot, they were oppressed and the riots were simply an expression of the oppression. I am not quite so understanding in this particular case…

Sleepy wrote: »

The problem, imho, comes in determining length of sentences: if someone is sentenced to 4 years is this because we deem that the length of time that it takes for society to consider them safe enough to be re-included? Or because it's a "harsh enough" punishment for their crime.

I think it is the later, speaking about the UK anyway as that is what I am more familiar with from a legal perspective. Whilst most law books will tell you the purpose of the criminal law, and imprisonment in particular, is to punish, to rehabilitate and to protect society I don’t think they are treated equally.

I think in general most sentences are base on a tariff. I am not aware of any guidelines on sentencing relating to rehabilitation, at least in the sense of how long a sentence should be to allow for rehabilitation.

It is possible for the courts to order certain activities to help with rehabilitation, and there are some specialist facilities, Grendon Underwood prison in the UK, for example.

IrishMark wrote: »

The rate of re-offending in this country would suggest that either:
sentences are too short

not enough is done to ensure the rehabilitation of the offender

some people are unreformable and should be either permanently locked away or terminated (whichever is cheaper to the state would be my preference in the imaginary situation where these people could be identified without a reasonable doubt, since that's not ever likely to be possible it would have to be the former)

I don’t think it is a question of one of these options being correct. It could be any one of them, a combination of them, or even something completely different.

With respect to sentences I think in a lot of cases too many people are being sent to prison. If you are sent to prison you are going to struggle to get back on the straight and narrow when you get out. Society tends to discriminate against people that have been in prison. I am not commenting on whether or not that is right or wrong, simply stating that it happens. So you have a large number of people going to prison for short sentences for minor crimes who get out and struggle to get back into society.

Scotland was looking at banning prison sentences of less than 6 months. This is not to say if a person was going to get 6 months they would get longer, but that if they were going to get six months or less they would not go to prison at all and an alternative sentence would be given.

It is generally thought that this is probably a good thing and is more likely to reduce reoffending, in those capable of rehabilitation, that lengthening prison sentences.

Rehabilitation is expensive. There is no doubt that there is not enough being done to rehabilitate persons found guilty of crime. I also think that locking up offenders of petty crime, particularly where no one was hurt, can be counter productive and lead to less success with rehabilitation.

Again, there is no doubt that some people are simply unable to be rehabilitated. I am against capital punishment, so even if guilt could be proved 100% reliably I would still not support it.

MrP

MrPudding · 30-08-2011 3:46pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It depends what we're talking about here. If we're including those prisons where inmates can call home, surf the internet, regular visitors, then no I don't think removal is a punishment. I'm living in China. My family live in Ireland. Its not that much trouble to hook up a webcam and talk for an hour and costs relatively little.

The punishment is the removal of freedom. Whilst the prisoners might be able to continue to speak with friends and family they are not “free.” They can’t pop round to their mates on a whim.

I think it is likely that in cases where there is a hope of rehabilitation the complete removal from society would make that rehabilitation less likely. How can you prepare someone for reintegration into society when you have removed him completely from it?

Deleted User wrote: »

Removal from society should mean just that. No contact beyond yearly visits. No doubt I'll be slated by those campaigning for prisoner rights, but if a prisoner can communicate almost as easily with family/friends as they did prior to their conviction, then theyre not being removed.

If the only purpose for the imprisonment is punishment and retribution (forgot to mention retribution in the previous post) then you are right. If you actually want to give people a chance to change then it makes little sense.

Deleted User wrote: »

On the other hand, I do see solitary confinement as being a punishment. I'd favor something similar except where prisoners only have access to a very limited number of other prisoners, guards, and extremely limited access (monitored) to the outside world.

Yes. Because making sure they only get to socialise with other criminals is really going to help the old rehabilitation.

Deleted User wrote: »

I have never broken any of the serious laws... including I suppose lesser offenses like theft. There has been no need, and while I have had a hard life at times, I could find legal alternatives to live. The law is there to protect society. Not protect those who break the law.

No, the law is also there to protect those who break it. We are a civilised society and we recognise that even those who break the law still need its protection.

Deleted User wrote: »

The removal of convicted criminals from society to prevent them from continuing their trade is the pimary role. Rehabilitation is part of it, but as long as neither the death penalty or mind-altering procedures are available, repeat offenders need to be kept behind bars. Its not perfect, but I prefer them in prison than walking the streets.

I don’t think we work hard enough to try to prevent reoffending, rehabilitation should take a higher priority. I don’t have any answers, by the way, it is such a massive problem and I think would take generations to fix.

Modern penal services don't really work. Its just that there is no better alternative. [/QUOTE]Agreed.

MrP

IrishMark · 30-08-2011 4:32pm

Thanks all for the responses. I'd consider myself to have a fairly up-to-date knowledge of both the Uk and Irish Penal Systems (Mr P, you might like to read what I thought of the response to the riots with regards to sentencing here: http://mark-untitled.blogspot.com/), but one thing I think they both have in common is related to first -time offenders. I probably should have made this clear earlier, but when I say that rehabilitation should be prioritised I mean that if the person is a first time offender, or even on a second offence, then that is the time for urgency in attempting to rehabilitate the person(s). From what I've read about it, I'm pretty convinced that if measures are taken, such as those here, whereby a first-time offender is locked up for a crime which warrants a six-month prison sentence (by warrant I mean it's a harsh enough prison sentence, as Sleep suggested above), then the likelihood is that this person will become more hard-line in his criminal activities whenever they are released. In contrast some Scandanavian countries which do provide prisons which may sometimes resemble holiday resorts concentrate on rehabilitation over punishment and the recidivism rates for those first-time offenders are significantly lower than here. So, if somebody de-frauds somebody and is sent to prison here for say 6months and is released having been punished, the chances are higher that that same person will de-fraud somebody else upon their release or perhapd murder someone, or whatever, than if they went through the system in these Scandanavian countries. Should the ultimate goal of a penal system not be to reduce the chances of such a scenario occuring; of trying to protect other people/families from heartache or pain, and only perhaps punishing those who have been through a rehabiltative process but are still habitual criminals? I may not have worded this as best I could, but hopefully it will make sense enough...

irishh_bob · 30-08-2011 4:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH, I think there's simply one more aspect. Removal from society.

I'd be inclined to believe in all three. Punishment must exist to reinborce that when you do something wrong (i.e. breaking the law), the person involved will receive some form of punishment. For some people its the only way that they learn... I know that it worked for me whilst growing up and taught me many aspects of right and wrong. For others... conventional punishment isnt effective.. and other focuses must be implemented.

Rehabilitation must be part of any system but it cannot exist on its own. Honestly, I don't believe that an effective format of rehabilitation has been found that applies to the majority of criminals. Sure, it works for some, but its rather limited. Repeat offenders is a rather harsh sign that the current and past systems have not worked. So, while rehabilitalion must be considered extremely important for any system... new and better ways must be found.

Lastly, removal from society is part of punishment but also serves an important role. There are those that refuse to reform either from rehabilitation or punishment. For those people, incarceration is necessary.

Its amazing the difference in living standards around the world. I've lived in many western and eastern countries and its shocking the differences in the type of crime commonly found around the world. While the manner in which countries like China treat their criminals is extremely harsh and often inhumane I can't really argue too much with results. Living here is extremely safer than living in many western countries. In my own hometown in Ireland there is a very strong problem with youth gangs randomly beating up people just for the fun of it, and very little that the Gardai can do (even though they know who they are).

I find that the western mentality towards criminals is a bit too limited. being humane is a worthy goal but fankly it hasn't worked. I'm not suggesting that the other side of harsh punishment works either but something in the middle needs to be found. And fast.

the modern mentality towards crime ( by the state ) often involves indifference and unaccountability masked as liberal compassion

30-08-2011 6:57pm

MrPudding wrote: »

The punishment is the removal of freedom. Whilst the prisoners might be able to continue to speak with friends and family they are not “free.” They can’t pop round to their mates on a whim.

I must admit that I don't know how often family can visit inmates within a single month. do you? Can friends or those not related visit also?

The point is that with technology they can continue many of the activities that they performed prior to conviction. Internet in some prisons gives them complete access to the world. Phones the same. The only real limitation is their physical presence.

Now... that in itself is quite bad. I will admit that. But there needs to be more. A complete removal from society with the exception of family visits. Otherwise, its an extremely limited form of punishment.... and an extremely silly detterant.

I think it is likely that in cases where there is a hope of rehabilitation the complete removal from society would make that rehabilitation less likely. How can you prepare someone for reintegration into society when you have removed him completely from it?

How they know that there is a hope of rehabilitation? Thats a serious question btw.

He/she chose to break the law. That in itself is a decision to remove themselves from general society. Now... if someone genuinely wishes to reform, a few years in prison (as I desire it to be) is not going to stop them.

If the only purpose for the imprisonment is punishment and retribution (forgot to mention retribution in the previous post) then you are right. If you actually want to give people a chance to change then it makes little sense.

I stated quite clearly what I think its about. Just read back a bit.

At the moment, or rather the way the prison system is going... its almost as if we're begging or bribing criminals to rehabilitate. And when that fails and they reoffend we're left at a loss. How could these people turn their backs on all that they were offered? Gosh. I'd much prefer that criminals feared imprisonment as much as I do.

Yes. Because making sure they only get to socialise with other criminals is really going to help the old rehabilitation.

As opposed to what? Who else are they socialising with now? The current system doesn't provide any other alternative. Instead of being exposed to all inmates within a prison they would be exposed to a limited few vetted along certain guidelines.

At the moment, prisons are schools where inmates learn new techniques and make contacts with others with the same mindset. At least, my way provides some form of limitation for rehabilitation to actually occur. You seem to advocate to continue free movement within the prison whereby they can talk to (and learn from) whoever they like.

No, the law is also there to protect those who break it. We are a civilised society and we recognise that even those who break the law still need its protection.

Protection aye. I can agree with that. However such a stance should never fail to acknowledge that by breaking the law, being convicted of breaking the law, and until they are actually rehabilitated they remain a threat to society and should be treated as such.

As for being a civilised society... i've always wondered what that actually means. Its said a lot here on boards, but I'm at a loss as to what the benefits in this case are. Does civilised mean that we treat those less civilised than us (from within our own society) with weakness? Because that is what we are doing right now. Currently inmates generally own the prisons with the guards often afraid to offend inmates. I can remember seeing programmes on RTE as much as two years ago talking about the drug trade in prisons or that certain inmates continue their business despite being "locked" up. TBH, I'm wondering if civilised just means we don't know what to do anymore with those that refuse to behave. After all, we've labelled everything else as being uncivilised... :rolleyes:

I don’t think we work hard enough to try to prevent reoffending, rehabilitation should take a higher priority. I don’t have any answers, by the way, it is such a massive problem and I think would take generations to fix.

And thats fine. Except... that its that attitude that will continue the current system except that inmates continue to gain more rights, and ultimately the prison system continues to go down the drain. I'd like to see some actual changes made that do not relate to giving inmates more freedoms. They're inmates for a very solid reason. Until they can show that they're capable of rejoining society without reoffending then they should be treated as such.

30-08-2011 7:08pm

IrishMark wrote: »

In contrast some Scandanavian countries which do provide prisons which may sometimes resemble holiday resorts concentrate on rehabilitation over punishment and the recidivism rates for those first-time offenders are significantly lower than here.

Its difficult to compare prison systems or rehabilitation rates when the cultures are so different. Unless these rates include foreign nationals convicted and rehabilitated?

But I would agree that for first time offenders there is an urgency to establish a clear guideline for rehabilitation however I can't see why we can't just segregate them away from repeat offenders and those with more serious crimes.

MrPudding · 30-08-2011 8:12pm

IrishMark wrote: »

Thanks all for the responses. I'd consider myself to have a fairly up-to-date knowledge of both the Uk and Irish Penal Systems (Mr P, you might like to read what I thought of the response to the riots with regards to sentencing here: http://mark-untitled.blogspot.com/), but one thing I think they both have in common is related to first -time offenders. I probably should have made this clear earlier, but when I say that rehabilitation should be prioritised I mean that if the person is a first time offender, or even on a second offence, then that is the time for urgency in attempting to rehabilitate the person(s). From what I've read about it, I'm pretty convinced that if measures are taken, such as those here, whereby a first-time offender is locked up for a crime which warrants a six-month prison sentence (by warrant I mean it's a harsh enough prison sentence, as Sleep suggested above), then the likelihood is that this person will become more hard-line in his criminal activities whenever they are released. In contrast some Scandanavian countries which do provide prisons which may sometimes resemble holiday resorts concentrate on rehabilitation over punishment and the recidivism rates for those first-time offenders are significantly lower than here. So, if somebody de-frauds somebody and is sent to prison here for say 6months and is released having been punished, the chances are higher that that same person will de-fraud somebody else upon their release or perhapd murder someone, or whatever, than if they went through the system in these Scandanavian countries. Should the ultimate goal of a penal system not be to reduce the chances of such a scenario occuring; of trying to protect other people/families from heartache or pain, and only perhaps punishing those who have been through a rehabiltative process but are still habitual criminals? I may not have worded this as best I could, but hopefully it will make sense enough...

Cool blog. Enjoyed that.

Deleted User wrote: »

I must admit that I don't know how often family can visit inmates within a single month. do you? Can friends or those not related visit also?

I must admit, i don't know myself, I think it varies from prison to prison. One thing I do know is that in a large number of cases visitors would not be able, necessarily, to take advantage of all the available visiting slot anyway. Possibly not so much of a problem in Ireland, but in the UK there is no guarantee that a friend or relative will be in a prison near by. In case where the family does not have a lot of money, which is realistically most cases, visits can be a rare and expensive thing.

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is that with technology they can continue many of the activities that they performed prior to conviction. Internet in some prisons gives them complete access to the world. Phones the same. The only real limitation is their physical presence.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Assuming, of course, they are positive activities.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now... that in itself is quite bad. I will admit that. But there needs to be more. A complete removal from society with the exception of family visits. Otherwise, its an extremely limited form of punishment.... and an extremely silly detterant.

I am not convinced of the deterrent aspect of prison. I know I personally don't want to go to prison and it kind of works for me, but a lot of people 1) don't think they have a choice but to commit crime and 2) it never crosses their mind that they will be caught, much less have to face prison. The most serious thing that can happen to a criminal, thankfully not in civilised countries like here in the EU, is to be put to death. Even that is not a deterrent.

Deleted User wrote: »

How they know that there is a hope of rehabilitation? Thats a serious question btw.

For a first time offender it should be assumed. For those who have already offended it would depend on pre-sentencing reports.

Deleted User wrote: »

He/she chose to break the law. That in itself is a decision to remove themselves from general society. Now... if someone genuinely wishes to reform, a few years in prison (as I desire it to be) is not going to stop them.

You should spend some time in the courts listening to cases. What becomes apparent quite quickly is that a lot of these people never had a chance. As I mentioned earlier, I am a believer in personal responsibility, but some people really never had a chance. I had a reasonably tough upbringing, but I did OK. At the same time I can see that not everyone is that lucky.

If you send someone to prison for a few years you will dramatically reduce the likelihood that they will be able to reform. They will spend time in prison with other criminals. This has a tendency to lead to secondary criminalisation, where a petty criminal that could be "corrected" moves on to less petty crimes. He is in an environment where he is surrounded by other criminals and so learns about other crimes. When you then consider that after serving a prison sentence he will find it very hard indeed to get a proper job. What do you think an education in crime plus an inability to get a proper job might lead to.

With all the best intentions it is going to be very hard to get anywhere after this. Of course, some do, but the very fact that the person turned to crime and then got caught clearly indicates that there are issues with the personality and does not bode well for being able to halt the journey down the slippery slope.

Deleted User wrote: »

I stated quite clearly what I think its about. Just read back a bit.

At the moment, or rather the way the prison system is going... its almost as if we're begging or bribing criminals to rehabilitate. And when that fails and they reoffend we're left at a loss. How could these people turn their backs on all that they were offered? Gosh. I'd much prefer that criminals feared imprisonment as much as I do.

I don't think criminals really consider the deterrent aspect of punishment. Who in their right mind would consider a crime where the punishment is death, or the cutting off of your hands? But people commit these crimes all the time. Criminals don't carry out a crime expecting to be caught.

Deleted User wrote: »

As opposed to what? Who else are they socialising with now? The current system doesn't provide any other alternative. Instead of being exposed to all inmates within a prison they would be exposed to a limited few vetted along certain guidelines.

As opposed to trying not to send people to prison in the first place. For petty crime, crimes where no one is physically hurt, I seriously don't think they should be sent to prison. I would like to see the abolishment of < 6 month prison sentences. I would prefer if alternative punishments where used in this type of case, working in the community, training etc.

Deleted User wrote: »

At the moment, prisons are schools where inmates learn new techniques and make contacts with others with the same mindset. At least, my way provides some form of limitation for rehabilitation to actually occur. You seem to advocate to continue free movement within the prison whereby they can talk to (and learn from) whoever they like.

I advocate free movement within prison? Where does that come from? I think we send too many people to prison. I am an advocate of sending a lot less people to prison in the first place.

Deleted User wrote: »

Protection aye. I can agree with that. However such a stance should never fail to acknowledge that by breaking the law, being convicted of breaking the law, and until they are actually rehabilitated they remain a threat to society and should be treated as such.

Just because someone is convicted of a crime does not automatically made them a threat to society.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for being a civilised society... i've always wondered what that actually means. Its said a lot here on boards, but I'm at a loss as to what the benefits in this case are. Does civilised mean that we treat those less civilised than us (from within our own society) with weakness?

I don't think treating not civilised people in a civilised manner is a sign of weakness, on the contrary, I think it is quite the opposite.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because that is what we are doing right now. Currently inmates generally own the prisons with the guards often afraid to offend inmates. I can remember seeing programmes on RTE as much as two years ago talking about the drug trade in prisons or that certain inmates continue their business despite being "locked" up. TBH, I'm wondering if civilised just means we don't know what to do anymore with those that refuse to behave. After all, we've labelled everything else as being uncivilised... :rolleyes:

I don't think that prisoners should be able to carry on illegal business whilst in prison. Nor do I think drugs should be allowed. I also don't think prisoners should be in charge of the prisons. Allowing prisoners to carry on illegal business is clearly not a recipe for rehabilitation.

Deleted User wrote: »

And thats fine. Except... that its that attitude that will continue the current system except that inmates continue to gain more rights, and ultimately the prison system continues to go down the drain. I'd like to see some actual changes made that do not relate to giving inmates more freedoms. They're inmates for a very solid reason. Until they can show that they're capable of rejoining society without reoffending then they should be treated as such.

I am pretty sure the answer does not lie in prison. It does not lie with tougher and longer sentences, particularly for petty criminals on first or second offences.

Deleted User wrote: »

Its difficult to compare prison systems or rehabilitation rates when the cultures are so different. Unless these rates include foreign nationals convicted and rehabilitated?

How different can they be really? Even in the UK they are beginning to get the idea that these short term sentences are not helping and are likely to be counter productive.

Deleted User wrote: »

But I would agree that for first time offenders there is an urgency to establish a clear guideline for rehabilitation however I can't see why we can't just segregate them away from repeat offenders and those with more serious crimes.

Who they are hanging around with is only part of the problem. Would you hire a guy that just got out of prison?

The issue is that prison really does not seem to be that effective. This is not because it is too easy or that the sentences are too short it is simply that, particularly in cases of petty criminals prison is rubbish for rehabilitation.

MrP

31-08-2011 8:34am

MrPudding wrote: »

I must admit, i don't know myself, I think it varies from prison to prison. One thing I do know is that in a large number of cases visitors would not be able, necessarily, to take advantage of all the available visiting slot anyway. Possibly not so much of a problem in Ireland, but in the UK there is no guarantee that a friend or relative will be in a prison near by. In case where the family does not have a lot of money, which is realistically most cases, visits can be a rare and expensive thing.

You could probably guess that I don't really care if their family has the money to spare to visit the inmate or not.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Assuming, of course, they are positive activities.

I think its quite reasonable to assume the opposite considering the situation they're in. After all, you have essentially admitted that prisons serve as training grounds for inmates, and that first time offenders are often "corrupted" by the more experienced criminals. Especially since their communication through these means are private and cannot be monitored by staff.

I am not convinced of the deterrent aspect of prison. I know I personally don't want to go to prison and it kind of works for me, but a lot of people 1) don't think they have a choice but to commit crime and 2) it never crosses their mind that they will be caught, much less have to face prison.

Its a deterrent for you and me. that in itself shows that on some levels its already working. Your two examples removes any abaility for any system to prevent them. Nothing is going to stop them, so therefore they're invalid examples...

The most serious thing that can happen to a criminal, thankfully not in civilised countries like here in the EU, is to be put to death. Even that is not a deterrent.

Its not a deterrent for everyone. Nothing ever is. Instead you seek to deter the majority and provide alternative means of dealing with the minority. It seems in the west that people want all or nothingf solutions. If it doesn't work for every situation then its useless.

For a first time offender it should be assumed.

Why?

For those who have already offended it would depend on pre-sentencing reports.

I disagree. Assume the worst but give people the option to reform. Make it available to them as a choice. And I'm guessing what you mean about those already offended, you're referring to repeat offenders?

You should spend some time in the courts listening to cases. What becomes apparent quite quickly is that a lot of these people never had a chance. As I mentioned earlier, I am a believer in personal responsibility, but some people really never had a chance. I had a reasonably tough upbringing, but I did OK. At the same time I can see that not everyone is that lucky.

I have. I also grew up in a rough town. I went to court in support of friends, and I've been as a witness. I've also spent over 9 years enforcing contracts on people in 5 different countries. I can agree that everyone is not lucky. Thats life. the vast majority of those I went to primary school with are in prison, or dead. Thats fairly common from part of my hometown.

I too am a very serious believer in personal responsibility. The difference though is that I believe there is always a choice. And there is. Its just whether to take the easy way, the not so hard way, the hard way or the extremely painful way. Another difference between us is that i believe its quite easy to see the people that want a normal life. They work the hardest, and refuse to take the easy way.

If you send someone to prison for a few years you will dramatically reduce the likelihood that they will be able to reform. They will spend time in prison with other criminals. This has a tendency to lead to secondary criminalisation, where a petty criminal that could be "corrected" moves on to less petty crimes. He is in an environment where he is surrounded by other criminals and so learns about other crimes. When you then consider that after serving a prison sentence he will find it very hard indeed to get a proper job. What do you think an education in crime plus an inability to get a proper job might lead to.

Government service?

But honestly, from the moment they're sentenced they will have problems getting normal work. Everyone knows the affect on your status from being sentenced. A pernament record. Something that most employers can see. Its not a secret. People are aware.

And as for being surrounded by criminals, I have already said how I would deal with this... You, on the other hand, haven't.

With all the best intentions it is going to be very hard to get anywhere after this. Of course, some do, but the very fact that the person turned to crime and then got caught clearly indicates that there are issues with the personality and does not bode well for being able to halt the journey down the slippery slope.

Tough. I mean it. I have no sympathy for those that break the law and see the inside of a prison cell. Its that simple. (If they're innocent and falsely charged then thats a completely different situation)

I don't think criminals really consider the deterrent aspect of punishment. Who in their right mind would consider a crime where the punishment is death, or the cutting off of your hands? But people commit these crimes all the time. Criminals don't carry out a crime expecting to be caught.

All the time? Really? Or are you combining the statistics of every country with the death penalty to get a higher figure... "All the time?" - Hardly. These crimes do happen. Thats a given. Depending on the country in question, how often is different.

As opposed to trying not to send people to prison in the first place. For petty crime, crimes where no one is physically hurt, I seriously don't think they should be sent to prison. I would like to see the abolishment of < 6 month prison sentences. I would prefer if alternative punishments where used in this type of case, working in the community, training etc.

Fine. Although I've always had a particular hatred for con "artists". But I don't actually disagree with you about minor crimes, although I would be in favor of heavier sentencing if someone reoffends thereafter.

I advocate free movement within prison? Where does that come from? I think we send too many people to prison. I am an advocate of sending a lot less people to prison in the first place.

And what do you do with those are still sent to prison? What you said above about minor non-violent crimes is fine, but there are still a lot of inmates that fall outside that category.

Just because someone is convicted of a crime does not automatically made them a threat to society.

Of course it does. They refuse to obey the laws, resulting in harm to the public or the state. Either way, its the general population that ends up paying.

I don't think treating not civilised people in a civilised manner is a sign of weakness, on the contrary, I think it is quite the opposite.

Which does nothing to answer my question.

I don't think that prisoners should be able to carry on illegal business whilst in prison. Nor do I think drugs should be allowed. I also don't think prisoners should be in charge of the prisons. Allowing prisoners to carry on illegal business is clearly not a recipe for rehabilitation.

And legal business? They're in prison ffs.

I am pretty sure the answer does not lie in prison. It does not lie with tougher and longer sentences, particularly for petty criminals on first or second offences.

Did I say it did? I spoke about the manner in which the prison service is run. Not about sentencing.

How different can they be really? Even in the UK they are beginning to get the idea that these short term sentences are not helping and are likely to be counter productive.

Well, tell me something.. is a romanian gypsy more likely to reoffend than a middle class educated Dane?

Who they are hanging around with is only part of the problem. Would you hire a guy that just got out of prison?

Depends on what he did to get into prison, and how he behaved in the interview. There would, of course, need to be a probation period, but then they apply to just about everyone.

The issue is that prison really does not seem to be that effective. This is not because it is too easy or that the sentences are too short it is simply that, particularly in cases of petty criminals prison is rubbish for rehabilitation.

Personally, I believe that there is too much focus on rehabilitation at the cost of punishment and removal from society. I said it at the beginning. All three aspects need to be in play rather than focusing on a single area.

goose2005 · 31-08-2011 10:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Removal from society should mean just that. No contact beyond yearly visits. No doubt I'll be slated by those campaigning for prisoner rights, but if a prisoner can communicate almost as easily with family/friends as they did prior to their conviction, then theyre not being removed.

I have never broken any of the serious laws... including I suppose lesser offenses like theft. There has been no need, and while I have had a hard life at times, I could find legal alternatives to live. The law is there to protect society. Not protect those who break the law.

There have been many times in my life where breaking the law would have made life easier. I could be a lot wealthier, and I probably would have gottena away with it.. Fear of incraceration, and the removal of my "innocent" legal status stopped me. But obeying the law and societies standards are not supposed to be easy. You just do it.

But you're not the typical criminal. Most criminals are semi-literate, with few job prospects or opportunities for social or financial advancement, often drug addicts and/or alcoholics. If you went to jail for a while, it would shock your family and create a disturbing gap in your CV - what if your family are all criminals, or if you don't have one, and if you don't see yourself getting a proper job.

irishh_bob wrote: »

the modern mentality towards crime ( by the state ) often involves indifference and unaccountability masked as liberal compassion

Not true. The main problem is that prisons are very very expensive. It costs more for the state to fund a year in prison than to pay for a 3-year undergraduate degree.

Deleted User wrote: »

At the moment, or rather the way the prison system is going... its almost as if we're begging or bribing criminals to rehabilitate. And when that fails and they reoffend we're left at a loss. How could these people turn their backs on all that they were offered? Gosh. I'd much prefer that criminals feared imprisonment as much as I do.

But they simply won't.

01-09-2011 5:42am

goose2005 wrote: »

But you're not the typical criminal. Most criminals are semi-literate, with few job prospects or opportunities for social or financial advancement, often drug addicts and/or alcoholics. If you went to jail for a while, it would shock your family and create a disturbing gap in your CV - what if your family are all criminals, or if you don't have one, and if you don't see yourself getting a proper job.

First off, I'm not a crinimal although when I was younger I was presented the chance on more than one occasion. I grew up in the Midlands, and while the major towns (Athlone, Longford, etc) have gone downhill in recent years, they were a far cry worse 20years ago. I went to the same schools as the hardened crinimals in my hometown. I was friends with a few of them and got put in hospital a few times by the others. They were presented with the same choices I was. Some took them, whilst others just took the easier route.

And thats the point... So many people seek to provide excuses for crinimals doing what they do. But I know individuals who chose not to follow the traditional path that their family had always followed. i.e. child prostitution, stealing as a child, bare knuckle fighting, muggings, youth gangs, etc etc. They took the beatings from their drunken parents and moved on with their lives. Others didn't. They made a choice. A hard choice, but a choice nonetheless.

Well, I'm tired of the excuses... they're not helpful. Seriously. If our penal system worked, reforming people, or our support system prevented them from turning to crime in the first place, then I could understand why you make excuses for the remainder.. But its not working. The excuses aren't helpful. Instead they continue to put up blocks to actually seeking to improve an already desperate situation.

But they simply won't.

Not under the current system they don't. You're assuming that they won't, regardless of the system in place. And I agree some people won't. Others will. But again, this line of "they" is an all or nothing proposition. Unless you can prevent everyone, then don't bother changing anything.

Just say for arguments sake, that the prison service was changed to provide something along the lines of what I propose. If 5 more people are forced to re-evaluate the consequences of commiting a crime, and forcing another 10 to reform for fear of staying in prison, then its a success.

catch me if you can · 02-09-2011 2:27pm

I really think criminals such as killers, rapists , paedaphiles etc cannot be rehabilitated and that we should not waste time trying to do so. they should be euthanaised and their bodies and organs given to medical science.
little scumbags robbing cars, arson attackes, shop robberys etc , should be punished. rehabilitation should be in the form of eduction courses in prisons and a job if possible when they get out. if they feck up again they should be offered no help after that.

IrishMark · 02-09-2011 6:12pm

catch me if you can wrote: »

I really think criminals such as killers, rapists , paedaphiles etc cannot be rehabilitated and that we should not waste time trying to do so. they should be euthanaised and their bodies and organs given to medical science.
little scumbags robbing cars, arson attackes, shop robberys etc , should be punished. rehabilitation should be in the form of eduction courses in prisons and a job if possible when they get out. if they feck up again they should be offered no help after that.

I disagree and I think this would exasperate the problem instead of solving it.

04-09-2011 3:35pm

catch me if you can wrote: »

I really think criminals such as killers, rapists , paedaphiles etc cannot be rehabilitated and that we should not waste time trying to do so. they should be euthanaised and their bodies and organs given to medical science.

I'm not as hard-line or extreme as this. I do believe that such people can be rehabilitated.... but they need to be shown that there is a dark side to what they do. That there are dark consequences for what they do. The reward of rehabilitation is actual freedom and joining society. The alternative is being locked up under severe conditions with minimal actual rights.

To put it simply... if they want the same rights as other humans... then start acting like one. Otherwise.. a life of 4 walls, and very little to occupy them.

little scumbags robbing cars, arson attackes, shop robberys etc , should be punished. rehabilitation should be in the form of eduction courses in prisons and a job if possible when they get out. if they feck up again they should be offered no help after that.

I totally agree. Give people a chance to change. If they won't, then let them bear the responsibility of their actions/decisions.

Villette · 04-09-2011 7:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not as hard-line or extreme as this. I do believe that such people can be rehabilitated.... but they need to be shown that there is a dark side to what they do. That there are dark consequences for what they do. The reward of rehabilitation is actual freedom and joining society. The alternative is being locked up under severe conditions with minimal actual rights.

To put it simply... if they want the same rights as other humans... then start acting like one. Otherwise.. a life of 4 walls, and very little to occupy them.

I really don't understand comments like this. If you take a hypothetical situation where someone has committed a crime and has then been offerred every chance of rehabiliation but goes on to reoffend you seem to be stating that this person should not just be sent to prison, but should be denied basic human rights as well?
I personally take the view that if someone commits a crime they should be detained for a)preventing future crimes and b)as a deterrent for other would be criminals. I don't think that punishment or revenge should come into it, so why else would you feel the need to say that they should have little to occupy them?
The above two reasons don't require it, except possibly deterrence but you have to question a society where someone is terrified of jail. I think most people feel that loss of liberty is enough to put them off committing a crime (morals too of course!) and if someone doesn't then you could argue that deterrence wouldn't work on them anyway - they are driven by stronger reasons. Perhaps the deterrence of torture - and I'd consider solitary confinement and no activities as amounting to torture in the longterm - would put them off, but you have to question the point of protecting a sociey that condones torture.
Utimately I would argue that society will never be crime-free and therefore you have to question how far society should go in trying to prevent crime. A society that treats its prisoners without basic human rights in the name of punishment- which by the way can never be forfeited no matter what a person does - should question the moral and practical costs on what it is protecting. I do take the extreme view in that I think that punishment should never come into justice as I think that revenge is morally wrong but also from a practical point of view I don't think it works.
Consider a prison where your reoffenders are locked up in cells with 'little else to occupy them'. Do you think that the people working there would be safe? And how could the prisoners ever be expected to change or feel remorse? I think financially it doesn't make sense as money is being spent on lost causes.
I think that criminals should be continually offered rehabiliation and that no one should ever be given up on but I think most people will agree that the current systems, even in liberal deomcracies such as Ireland and the UK, do not provide adequate rehabilitation services, and far more effort needs to be put into this. Training, education, counselling etc should be offered as I believe it is in society's best interests. I'm sure a lot more research needs to be done on how to rehabillitate.

Chuck Stone · 04-09-2011 8:51pm

IrishMark wrote: »

Hi,My father has recently declared that he prioritises punishment over rehabilitation as the greatest aim of the penal system. I don't agree with this at all. I don't see how it is pragmatic or useful to society. What are the thoughts of those here?

I think discussing methods of whipping is fun and all but perhaps we should look at how 'we' decide who gets whipped in the first place.

We really should consider how societal structures tend to influence how and who ends up being labelled a criminal. The law tends to criminalize certain sections of society with far more rigour than others.

Crimes of a corporate nature end up being examined in tribunal form rather than in criminal courts. Death and destruction attributable to the negligence of corporations and governements tends to be labelled as 'accidents'.

Also, resources tend to get thrown at policing the behaviour of people at the 'bottom' end of society rather than being put into government regulation of corporations, or pursuit of corporate criminal transgression, which has the potential to be massively socially destructive (need we mention the banks?).

tl;dr: the law is not evenly applied.

05-09-2011 6:56am

Villette wrote: »

I really don't understand comments like this. If you take a hypothetical situation where someone has committed a crime and has then been offerred every chance of rehabiliation but goes on to reoffend you seem to be stating that this person should not just be sent to prison, but should be denied basic human rights as well?

Yup. You've got me. I do believe that some "rights" should be denied to those who refuse to obey the law.

I personally take the view that if someone commits a crime they should be detained for a)preventing future crimes and b)as a deterrent for other would be criminals. I don't think that punishment or revenge should come into it, so why else would you feel the need to say that they should have little to occupy them?

Little to occupy them being extremely basic facilities. I'm thinking of the kind of entertainment/exercise facilities of the 50's.

The interesting thing I find is that if anyone suggests taking away liberties or benefits it then the whole thing becomes punishment or revenge. The prison system didn't always provide such facilities to inmates.

The above two reasons don't require it, except possibly deterrence but you have to question a society where someone is terrified of jail.

I think you have to question a society where someone isn't afraid of jail.

I think most people feel that loss of liberty is enough to put them off committing a crime (morals too of course!) and if someone doesn't then you could argue that deterrence wouldn't work on them anyway - they are driven by stronger reasons. Perhaps the deterrence of torture - and I'd consider solitary confinement and no activities as amounting to torture in the longterm - would put them off, but you have to question the point of protecting a sociey that condones torture.

Nope, you're arguing what torture entails. I see it as a deterrent to those that repeat offend. They can see what its like for those who have come before them, and make that choice to put themselves in the same position or reform.

I said four walls... I didn't say solitary confinement. If you read back a page you will see that I believe that small numbers of inmates should be exposed to each other, but not be allowed "free" movement within a prison.

Utimately I would argue that society will never be crime-free and therefore you have to question how far society should go in trying to prevent crime.

Another all or nothing stance. Of course society will never be free of crime, simply because society will change what it considers to be crime as time goes by. I prefer to question how little a society will do to prevent crime.

A society that treats its prisoners without basic human rights in the name of punishment- which by the way can never be forfeited no matter what a person does - should question the moral and practical costs on what it is protecting. I do take the extreme view in that I think that punishment should never come into justice as I think that revenge is morally wrong but also from a practical point of view I don't think it works.

Practically speaking.... why doesn't it work? Once revenge is taken out of the picture.

Consider a prison where your reoffenders are locked up in cells with 'little else to occupy them'. Do you think that the people working there would be safe? And how could the prisoners ever be expected to change or feel remorse? I think financially it doesn't make sense as money is being spent on lost causes.

A hell of a lot safer than now. With inmates having extremely limited access to materials to make weapons, little exposure to other inmates cuts down on organisation, extremely limited contact to the outside world would cut down on external threats.. etc. From a practical pov, there are plenty of ways to design a prison where inmates would have no physical contact with guards.

Regarding remorse, personally I believe criminals operate primarily out of their own self-interest. If the world they inhabit in prison is worse that the real world, then they will do all they can to stay in the real world.... Simple.

As for the money.... it is already being spent on a lost cause. Can you prove otherwise?

I think that criminals should be continually offered rehabiliation and that no one should ever be given up on but I think most people will agree that the current systems, even in liberal deomcracies such as Ireland and the UK, do not provide adequate rehabilitation services, and far more effort needs to be put into this. Training, education, counselling etc should be offered as I believe it is in society's best interests. I'm sure a lot more research needs to be done on how to rehabillitate.

What is adequate? Where does the money come from? Realistically speaking... how much would it cost to provide an effective rehabilitation service?

I have seen plenty of posts over the years saying that rehabilitation is so important, and that more money should be spent on it. Fine. I agree. There should be more money spent on it. BUT we never will. Its that simple. Ireland is not an economic powerhouse with money to burn. And even if we were, we still wouldn't have the money to do it, since there would be the demands from every other department... Look at the US, or other countries with far more powerful economies and you will see the same demands.

Adequate effective Rehabilitation is a wonderful idea... it really is. But its unlikely that there will ever be enough money (or interest) to pay for it.

Villette · 05-09-2011 8:09pm

So you don't believe in the system of human rights then, where everyone is entitled to rights as a human being? I think this is so important. I also think that how a society treats its members defines it, and I personally reject the idea that a state should mistreat a group of people in the name of protecting its members. If we accept that crime will always exist then we should consider how far we want to go to prevent it. It seems paradoxical to me to argue that preventing crime is important while at the same time devaluing human life by restricting the rights of those who don't follow the rules. I think a society loses any moral weight behind its rules if it treats people in a way that goes against the reasons behind its laws.

Okay so you don't believe in a completely tortuous life for inmates but would you not at least consider that they be given the opportunity to do something useful? I think a life that involves no contact with loved ones, no personal choices whatsoever, limited contact with other prisoners and only the basic needs to survive would amout to inhumane treatment. It also just doesn't make sense, do you have any other reason for it other than deterrence or revenge?

As for deterrence, I don't think that people being more afraid of the consequences of justice works any better. In the past it didn't seem to work, and does it even today? In repressive regimes where the use of torture and work camps, and inhumane conditions are common, I'm not sure that the crime rates are improved. I'll admit I don't have any statistics but does the death penalty in certain states in the US work at preventing murders? And surely you would have to agree that the potential for deterrence must be considerable to justify violations of human rights? I think that states might be better off considering the reasons and environment that induce people to commit crimes if prevention of crime is to be realistic.
I also think you have to question someone who doesn't fear loss of liberty itself - or at least commits a crime regardless of this consequence. Would they really stop and think twice if you also add in inhumane treatment in prison?

I don't want to go too into the practical reasons behind my argument - mainly because I don't know enough and have not done enough research - but to me it makes sense that giving up on a sector of society and treating them inhumanely cannot benefit society in any way, morally or practically.
Even just to ensure basic rights for prisoners, workers in prisons would have to interact in some way with the prisoners. I've watched the series on America's Hardest Prisons (I don't know how educational they may be, but you get some insight into life in a high security jail) and what's clear is that those who have nothing to lose are incredibly dangerous. Why create an environment where a criminal gets worse? The financial aspect, I really don't know much about, but in an ideal society we would spend more money on rehabilitation. There may be no proof that it works but it hasn't exactly been prioritised by states. Money is always an issue, but the money is there, it just depends on what the state chooses to spend it on and I really don't think there is any will out there to consider rehabilitating criminals.

06-09-2011 5:40am

Villette wrote: »

So you don't believe in the system of human rights then, where everyone is entitled to rights as a human being? I think this is so important.

I think you;re being overly simplistic. Either someone has all the human rights or they don't. That they deserve each and every one of them regardless of how they behave towards other human beings.

I also think that how a society treats its members defines it, and I personally reject the idea that a state should mistreat a group of people in the name of protecting its members.

You're using leading language... mistreat a group of people... treating criminals as criminals doesn't necessarily mean mistreating someone. Taking away all those lovely little privilages that inmates currently have is not mistreating someone.

If we accept that crime will always exist then we should consider how far we want to go to prevent it. It seems paradoxical to me to argue that preventing crime is important while at the same time devaluing human life by restricting the rights of those who don't follow the rules. I think a society loses any moral weight behind its rules if it treats people in a way that goes against the reasons behind its laws.

I'll be honest and say that I think are too concerned with morals and not enough with the practicalities of reality. Morals and giving criminals/inmates more rights has increased the decline of any prison service. Now that we've given them all these rights, there's such obstacles to taking them away again. I'm pretty sure the argument for better facilities, rights, etc would have been that it would increase rehabilitation.. but it hasn't.

Okay so you don't believe in a completely tortuous life for inmates but would you not at least consider that they be given the opportunity to do something useful? I think a life that involves no contact with loved ones, no personal choices whatsoever, limited contact with other prisoners and only the basic needs to survive would amout to inhumane treatment. It also just doesn't make sense, do you have any other reason for it other than deterrence or revenge?

The only useful thing I am asking of inmates is to reform and not to turn to crime again.

And as for reasons, its quite simple. They broke the rules in a rather extreme way... You can't seem to accept that there are consequences for actions such as these. It doesn't have to be about punishment or revenge.. If you read my posts, the only time I have mentioned them is in response to others posts. In fact, I'm pretty sure its only the people arguing against me, that have introduced these as reasons.

As for deterrence, I don't think that people being more afraid of the consequences of justice works any better. In the past it didn't seem to work, and does it even today?

Well, we can look into the past and notice that crime rates were much lower than they are today. Even if you factor in changes in culture, immigration, economic stress etc you have to see that there has been a rather large jump in crime over the last 30 years.

In repressive regimes where the use of torture and work camps, and inhumane conditions are common, I'm not sure that the crime rates are improved. I'll admit I don't have any statistics but does the death penalty in certain states in the US work at preventing murders? And surely you would have to agree that the potential for deterrence must be considerable to justify violations of human rights? I think that states might be better off considering the reasons and environment that induce people to commit crimes if prevention of crime is to be realistic.

And yet, I'm not asking for the death penalty or torture. I'm not asking to introduce work camps. You're the one introducing them into the topic to support your argument.

I'm suggesting some rather small changes to the way the current prison system works. It is you that has decided that what I have suggested consitutes torture and removal of human rights.

I also think you have to question someone who doesn't fear loss of liberty itself - or at least commits a crime regardless of this consequence. Would they really stop and think twice if you also add in inhumane treatment in prison?

Again with the inhumane stuff. I think that some people would seriously reconsider commiting crime a second time after being exposed to a harder prison system. As for first timers... there is no real answer.

I don't want to go too into the practical reasons behind my argument - mainly because I don't know enough and have not done enough research - but to me it makes sense that giving up on a sector of society and treating them inhumanely cannot benefit society in any way, morally or practically.
Even just to ensure basic rights for prisoners, workers in prisons would have to interact in some way with the prisoners. I've watched the series on America's Hardest Prisons (I don't know how educational they may be, but you get some insight into life in a high security jail) and what's clear is that those who have nothing to lose are incredibly dangerous. Why create an environment where a criminal gets worse? The financial aspect, I really don't know much about, but in an ideal society we would spend more money on rehabilitation. There may be no proof that it works but it hasn't exactly been prioritised by states. Money is always an issue, but the money is there, it just depends on what the state chooses to spend it on and I really don't think there is any will out there to consider rehabilitating criminals.

I really think you should read what I've written again (including page 1).. safety would be better served by the changes I propose for both the inmates and the prison staff. My suggestions don't remove rehabilitation from the table. It just adds an extra incentive for those people who don't want to live in prison anymore...

Alas an ideal society is faaarr away from us... I'd prefer to deal with the problems we have today with the resources available to us. Its dreaming of perfection that has brought us to this situation.

Punishment in the Penal System

Comments