New punishments for crimes

pitythefool

As is often stated, many punishments do not suite the crime

Jail can be a holiday or a business meeting for some and hell for others

To start off i will say what use is it send Judge Heather Perrinn to jail when they could order her to pay €500,000 in to the estate of the injured party, take away her law qualifications and her pension

Any thoughts?

FreudianSlippers

pitythefool wrote: »

As is often stated, many punishments do not suite the crime

Jail can be a holiday or a business meeting for some and hell for others

To start off i will say what use is it send Judge Heather Perrinn to jail when they could order her to pay €500,000 in to the estate of the injured party, take away her law qualifications and her pension

Any thoughts?

So new punishments specific for each individual in the state? Seems clumsy and unnecessarily complex.

A criminal offence is a criminal offence. If we started letting people with more money pay their way out of serving time, where is the line drawn? How much does assault cost? Rape? Murder?

pitythefool

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So new punishments specific for each individual in the state? Seems clumsy and unnecessarily complex.

A criminal offence is a criminal offence. If we started letting people with more money pay their way out of serving time, where is the line drawn? How much does assault cost? Rape? Murder?

This is an experimental thread

Alot of people wouldnt mind seeing rapists neutered

I wouldnt mind seeing gangland killers of innocents locked into the worst conditions possible with very little human rights

Just remember this is experimental and can progress with new cases that are reported in the paper

Death and Taxes

One has to question the value of imprisonment other than as a protection for society against the most dangerous of violent criminals. As either a deterrent or as a rehabilatative mesure prison clearly does not work, countries with the rates of incarceration also have the highest rates of crime, so it is time to look beyond prison for answers to crime and how we deal with it.
Certainly I am against the death penalty or other forms of barbarism as well. For myself , I think a more holistic approach needs to be taken to the whole area of crime and punishment. We need to look at the offenders, where they come from, their thinking and experience and how that has afffected their life choices, but we also need to look at how we, as a society, address offending behaviour. Do we want pure revenge? Do we want protection (which in effect is arguably merely postponing the next offence and the next victim until after release) or do we want deterrants that work combined with rehabilatative stratagies that break the offending behaviour and increase the likelyhood that offenders will become productive and usefull members of society?
There are no quick fixes, but before we start looking for new answers perhaps we should look at what have now that isn't working, and what we have tried previously (hanging,flogging,bread and water, transportation, hard labour etc) which didn't work.

Gee Bag

The hang 'em, flog 'em, throw 'em in filthy cells approach has never worked anywhere. So I'm afraid my suggestions are going to be of the do-gooder lefty type'

• Build modern prisons with enough spaces so that full sentences are served
• Have proper drug treatment and education faccilities in prisons
• Have a well funded and consistent youth intervention programme
• Give judges proper sentencing guidlines (not mandatory sentences) with longer sentences for serious crime if need be
• A properly resourced Garda fraud squad to deal with white collar and political criminality, have the upper echelons of society lead by example whether they want to or not
• Consider legalising drugs

This kind of approach won't generate any kind of postive headlines in the short term, but is proven to be more effective at reducing crime in the medium to long term

babi-hrse

well im in support of hard labour... maybe it could offset the running cost of the prision.
also it would teach some who have never worked a day in their life what work can be ya'know uplifting stuff that they actually get a chance to do something. might make a concerted effort to get a job on the outside although in this current climate it will be a tad difficult but ya'know where im drivin at.

Death and Taxes

babi-hrse wrote: »

well im in support of hard labour... maybe it could offset the running cost of the prision.
also it would teach some who have never worked a day in their life what work can be ya'know uplifting stuff that they actually get a chance to do something. might make a concerted effort to get a job on the outside although in this current climate it will be a tad difficult but ya'know where im drivin at.

Tried and failed!

pitythefool

Gee Bag wrote: »

The hang 'em, flog 'em, throw 'em in filthy cells approach has never worked anywhere. So I'm afraid my suggestions are going to be of the do-gooder lefty type'

• Build modern prisons with enough spaces so that full sentences are served
• Have proper drug treatment and education faccilities in prisons
• Have a well funded and consistent youth intervention programme
• Give judges proper sentencing guidlines (not mandatory sentences) with longer sentences for serious crime if need be
• A properly resourced Garda fraud squad to deal with white collar and political criminality, have the upper echelons of society lead by example whether they want to or not
• Consider legalising drugs

This kind of approach won't generate any kind of postive headlines in the short term, but is proven to be more effective at reducing crime in the medium to long term

Large modern prisons could work in the sense that violent criminals would see out there whole sentence but from what i hear about Irish prisons if that is the worst thing that could happen some people it is not even punishment, more training and reward/punishment schemes within prisons may work, start people in a position relative to their crime and promote/demote based on behavior

I could agree with the rest of your post but drug treatment and education could be used on the outside too but im sure this was implied though

Gee Bag

pitythefool wrote: »

Large modern prisons could work in the sense that violent criminals would see out there whole sentence.

I was thinking along the lines that pretty much everyone has to serve their sentence, not just violent criminals. I'd also think that different types of prisoners could be kept seperate from each other as much as possible eg. gang members be kept apart from one another (whether they are in the same gang or not), violent criminals kept away from 'ordinary' prisoners, etc. etc.

more training and reward/punishment schemes within prisons may work, start people in a position relative to their crime and promote/demote based on behavior

That's an interesting idea, could you give a bit of detail on how it might work

I could agree with the rest of your post but drug treatment and education could be used on the outside toom im sure this was implied though

It was indeed,
I would be very much of the opinion that its important for the state to intervene to give all of its citizens an equal oppurtunity as set forth in the proclomation of the Irish Republic. I think the centenary of 1916 would be better marked by lchanging the constitution to legislate for this than by flag waving jingoistic nonsense

mitosis

Any punishment for crimes would be a start. There are far too many multiple conviction criminals serving cursory terms and walking the streets.

Sunnyisland

WileyCoyote wrote: »

One has to question the value of imprisonment other than as a protection for society against the most dangerous of violent criminals. As either a deterrent or as a rehabilatative mesure prison clearly does not work, countries with the rates of incarceration also have the highest rates of crime, so it is time to look beyond prison for answers to crime and how we deal with it.
Certainly I am against the death penalty or other forms of barbarism as well. For myself , I think a more holistic approach needs to be taken to the whole area of crime and punishment. We need to look at the offenders, where they come from, their thinking and experience and how that has afffected their life choices, but we also need to look at how we, as a society, address offending behaviour. Do we want pure revenge? Do we want protection (which in effect is arguably merely postponing the next offence and the next victim until after release) or do we want deterrants that work combined with rehabilatative stratagies that break the offending behaviour and increase the likelyhood that offenders will become productive and usefull members of society?
There are no quick fixes, but before we start looking for new answers perhaps we should look at what have now that isn't working, and what we have tried previously (hanging,flogging,bread and water, transportation, hard labour etc) which didn't work.

Gee Bag wrote: »

The hang 'em, flog 'em, throw 'em in filthy cells approach has never worked anywhere. So I'm afraid my suggestions are going to be of the do-gooder lefty type'

• Build modern prisons with enough spaces so that full sentences are served
• Have proper drug treatment and education faccilities in prisons
• Have a well funded and consistent youth intervention programme
• Give judges proper sentencing guidlines (not mandatory sentences) with longer sentences for serious crime if need be
• A properly resourced Garda fraud squad to deal with white collar and political criminality, have the upper echelons of society lead by example whether they want to or not
• Consider legalising drugs

This kind of approach won't generate any kind of postive headlines in the short term, but is proven to be more effective at reducing crime in the medium to long term

Says it all for me thanks, We have tried every other way so far, its time for a new approach.

pitythefool

Gee Bag wrote: »

I was thinking along the lines that pretty much everyone has to serve their sentence, not just violent criminals. I'd also think that different types of prisoners could be kept seperate from each other as much as possible eg. gang members be kept apart from one another (whether they are in the same gang or not), violent criminals kept away from 'ordinary' prisoners, etc. etc.



That's an interesting idea, could you give a bit of detail on how it might work



It was indeed,
I would be very much of the opinion that its important for the state to intervene to give all of its citizens an equal oppurtunity as set forth in the proclomation of the Irish Republic. I think the centenary of 1916 would be better marked by lchanging the constitution to legislate for this than by flag waving jingoistic nonsense

Thought so

Apologies if you saw a previous quote, i missed the part where you asked for reccommendations

I suppose a prisoners original standing could be based on their crime and their privileges, accomodation and job could then be assigned accordingly

Next a ranking could be given to each of their character traits to assess risk, treatment and education needed

Based on positive/negative reactions to their new surroundings they could then be reassessed for different treatment

I suppose it would be a resocialisig experiment with an aim to rehabilitation and encourage prisoners to s~~t or get off the pot

I am aware that something similar already exists but not as implimented as it should be, prison needs to be more like the real world and less of a holiday camp

pitythefool

mitosis wrote: »

Any punishment for crimes would be a start. There are far too many multiple conviction criminals serving cursory terms and walking the streets.

any recommendations?

hmmm

realies wrote: »

We have tried every other way so far, its time for a new approach.

We have had twenty years of the "rehabilitative" approach, what are you talking about? Violent criminals are walking out of jails laughing at us for releasing them. Billions are being pumped into 'deprived' areas while areas that pay taxes haven't got a swimming pool or playground to be seen.

I'm all for a long term approach to tackling the causes of criminality, but not at the expense of short term protection of the public which is what we have at the moment.

For a start, a strong distinction needs to be made between violent and non-violent offences. I'm happy to see violent offenders jailed and serve their time, and I'll pay whatever tax is necessary to keep them off the streets whilst they represent a danger. I'm happy to see alternative approaches to non-violent offenders that doesn't involve jail time, but still involves punishment.

pitythefool

hmmm wrote: »

We have had twenty years of the "rehabilitative" approach, what are you talking about? Violent criminals are walking out of jails laughing at us for releasing them. Billions are being pumped into 'deprived' areas while areas that pay taxes haven't got a swimming pool or playground to be seen.

I'm all for a long term approach to tackling the causes of criminality, but not at the expense of short term protection of the public which is what we have at the moment.

For a start, a strong distinction needs to be made between violent and non-violent offences. I'm happy to see violent offenders jailed and serve their time, and I'll pay whatever tax is necessary to keep them off the streets whilst they represent a danger. I'm happy to see alternative approaches to non-violent offenders that doesn't involve jail time, but still involves punishment.

Any recommendations for both levels of crime

In the case of white colar criminals would it be fair to have smaller sentences along with a new higher taxt bracket when they enter the real world

I read recently that Larry Murphy refused treatment in prison, should it no have been forced upon him

pitythefool

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So new punishments specific for each individual in the state? Seems clumsy and unnecessarily complex.

A criminal offence is a criminal offence. If we started letting people with more money pay their way out of serving time, where is the line drawn? How much does assault cost? Rape? Murder?

Rape and Murder could be non excusable crime with mandatory prison sentence

I hop you werent thinking i had said otherwise

mitosis

White collar criminals are not usually a danger to society, so their punishment should be fiscal. Lads like this should be taken out of circulation

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-on-high-alert-as-teen-gun-for-hire-is-released-from-jail-3312417.html

Mason – who has 179 criminal convictions and was jailed for 16 years for attempted murder in October – narrowly escaped with his life

He is free.

pitythefool

mitosis wrote: »

White collar criminals are not usually a danger to society, so their punishment should be fiscal. Lads like this should be taken out of circulation

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-on-high-alert-as-teen-gun-for-hire-is-released-from-jail-3312417.html



He is free.

Absolute scum, no privaleges, just therapy and hard work for this kind of criminal, until remorse and positive resocialising occurred, also i would make sure the full sentence was seen through because right now this guy is laughing at us

What do you think?

RDM_83 again

Can I make the point while I don't necessarily believe that the flog them/hard labour brigade have the right solution, I do think that the circumstances in which this approach was tried before was at a time where the welfare state was basically non existant (and I believe the same could be stated about the current USA system with its minimal welfare and huge prison population). In short when this approach was tried it was all Stick and no Carrot e.g if you didn;t/couldn;t work you lived in abject poverty and deprivation.

I'd been in favour of the idea of stronger regime in all senses with better conditions and opportunities for rehabilitation (I think this applies to the male prison population more than the female) combined with longer sentences a much stricter approach to hard drugs in prison and a worthwhile and rewarded labour program(its fine arguing for liberal drug laws but if some one is addicted and commiting crimes they have demonstrated that they can not handle drug use in a manner that does not impact wider society). I also think that there should be less emphasis on the high profile murders and more on repeat offenders who have convictions involving bodly harm.
In Ireland at present apart from in certain areas I don't believe there is a huge amount of violent crime happening constantly but what there is, is a situation where there's a certain amount of the population (scumbags) that no they can act violently or intimadatingly without reprecusion, these people in the best case need to be either reformedn into productive members of society, or in at least broken so they understand that their actions have consequences or in the very worst case (due to expense) removed from society completely

pitythefool

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Can I make the point while I don't necessarily believe that the flog them/hard labour brigade have the right solution, I do think that the circumstances in which this approach was tried before was at a time where the welfare state was basically non existant (and I believe the same could be stated about the current USA system with its minimal welfare and huge prison population). In short when this approach was tried it was all Stick and no Carrot e.g if you didn;t/couldn;t work you lived in abject poverty and deprivation.

I'd been in favour of the idea of stronger regime in all senses with better conditions and opportunities for rehabilitation (I think this applies to the male prison population more than the female) combined with longer sentences a much stricter approach to hard drugs in prison and a worthwhile and rewarded labour program(its fine arguing for liberal drug laws but if some one is addicted and commiting crimes they have demonstrated that they can not handle drug use in a manner that does not impact wider society). I also think that there should be less emphasis on the high profile murders and more on repeat offenders who have convictions involving bodly harm.
In Ireland at present apart from in certain areas I don't believe there is a huge amount of violent crime happening constantly but what there is, is a situation where there's a certain amount of the population (scumbags) that no they can act violently or intimadatingly without reprecusion, these people in the best case need to be either reformedn into productive members of society, or in at least broken so they understand that their actions have consequences or in the very worst case (due to expense) removed from society completely

How would you punished a repeat offernder before he becomes one

Interesting points here

oscarBravo

mitosis wrote: »

Any punishment for crimes would be a start.

hmmm wrote: »

I'm happy to see alternative approaches to non-violent offenders that doesn't involve jail time, but still involves punishment.

The emphasis on punishment isn't a constructive one. Any rational discussion on this topic needs to start with the question: what is the role of the criminal justice system?

If punishment is seen as an end in its own right, it basically amounts to vengeance: the criminal did something bad, and now something bad must happen to him in return. It can be cathartic, but it's not necessarily productive.

For me, the goal of a criminal justice system is to keep the ordinary citizen safe. The best way to do that is to reduce the level of crime, which leads to the question: which approaches are most likely to reduce recidivism?

In (for example) the US, the emphasis is on locking people up. Keep them away from the rest of us, and we'll be fine. There's relatively little emphasis on rehabilitation, which means that the public safety benefit is short-term, because recidivism is high. By contrast, Norway's justice system emphasises rehabilitation, which leads to lower rates of recidivism, which means that the public safety benefit outlasts the prison term.

It seems to me that the Norwegian model leads to better outcomes in terms of keeping the public safe, which makes it objectively the better approach, even if it offends some people who don't feel that the criminals are suffering enough for their liking.

horsemaster

Thats a great topic OP. I think there are pros and cons to it. But I think there is a definite need to look into your idea. I know we all talk about this at home saying the punishment doesn't fit the crime, etc. But then, what kind of punishment is correct? Iy seems amny of the different crimes are given the same sentetence. They are lumped up. I know in small towns in the USA, the judges sometimes give very unique punishment/rehablitation to the offender. Some very really good I felt while some weren't. But I think you have brought up a great topic.

Death and Taxes

hmmm wrote: »

We have had twenty years of the "rehabilitative" approach, what are you talking about? Violent criminals are walking out of jails laughing at us for releasing them. Billions are being pumped into 'deprived' areas while areas that pay taxes haven't got a swimming pool or playground to be seen.

I'm all for a long term approach to tackling the causes of criminality, but not at the expense of short term protection of the public which is what we have at the moment.

For a start, a strong distinction needs to be made between violent and non-violent offences. I'm happy to see violent offenders jailed and serve their time, and I'll pay whatever tax is necessary to keep them off the streets whilst they represent a danger. I'm happy to see alternative approaches to non-violent offenders that doesn't involve jail time, but still involves punishment.

We most certainly have not!
Before posting i would suggest people read the report of the Whittaker Comittee, practically none of their recommendations have been acted upon.
Explain please how locking people up for 16 hours a day, often in overcrowded and draconian conditions where they are forced to eat their meals a few feet away from the bucket that serves as a toilet is "Rehabilatative"?

RDM_83 again

pitythefool wrote: »

How would you punished a repeat offernder before he becomes one

Interesting points here

Well I wouldn't advocate a three strikes and your out system , but placing people with 5-10 convictions in a strictly enforced rehabilitation program (not necessarily incarceration however) with each subsequent conviction involving incarceration and rehabilitation (with these sentences being fully served and no early release interupting the rehabilitation program). These may seem rather "weak" but the amount of court cases involving people with 30+ convictions even at a relatively young age is ridiculous.

hmmm

oscarBravo wrote: »

For me, the goal of a criminal justice system is to keep the ordinary citizen safe. The best way to do that is to reduce the level of crime, which leads to the question: which approaches are most likely to reduce recidivism?
(snip)
In (for example) the US, the emphasis is on locking people up. Keep them away from the rest of us, and we'll be fine.

I agree with your premise that the object is public safety. Perhaps you'll also agree with mine that while a criminal is in jail, the chances of them committing a further crime that impacts on the ordinary citizen is zero. With that "solution" in mind, all other solutions need to be judged, and all I can see is a current approach that focuses on the need of the criminals before the need of society.

The conditions in our jails do appear to be, in places, awful. But prison is only one part of our criminal justice system. I don't claim to have any expertise in this area, only sharing the common frustrations of most 'ordinary' people.

For example, why do we have overwhelming use of concurrent rather than consecutive sentences? If murdering someone, go ahead and rape them first if you feel like it as it'll make no difference.

How are there people with 100+ convictions walking the streets? How much misery has that one person inflicted and will go on to inflict?

How can 'being under the influence' be seen to be a mitigating factor in a violent crime? If someone is tanked up with alcohol or drugs, am I as an ordinary citizen expected to know that they should be avoided as they seemingly cannot be held responsible for their own actions.

Billions are pumped into deprived areas, and the majority of citizens in those areas don't commit crimes. Yet when someone does, they get to claim that they came from 'a deprived background' as a mitigation. How does it help the safety of the ordinary public that someone from a 'deprived background' is released earlier than someone who committed the exact same crime who doesn't have this excuse.

pitythefool

oscarBravo wrote: »

The emphasis on punishment isn't a constructive one. Any rational discussion on this topic needs to start with the question: what is the role of the criminal justice system?

If punishment is seen as an end in its own right, it basically amounts to vengeance: the criminal did something bad, and now something bad must happen to him in return. It can be cathartic, but it's not necessarily productive.

For me, the goal of a criminal justice system is to keep the ordinary citizen safe. The best way to do that is to reduce the level of crime, which leads to the question: which approaches are most likely to reduce recidivism?

In (for example) the US, the emphasis is on locking people up. Keep them away from the rest of us, and we'll be fine. There's relatively little emphasis on rehabilitation, which means that the public safety benefit is short-term, because recidivism is high. By contrast, Norway's justice system emphasises rehabilitation, which leads to lower rates of recidivism, which means that the public safety benefit outlasts the prison term.

It seems to me that the Norwegian model leads to better outcomes in terms of keeping the public safe, which makes it objectively the better approach, even if it offends some people who don't feel that the criminals are suffering enough for their liking.

What if the prisoner refuses treatment and lacks remorse?

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

We most certainly have not!
Before posting i would suggest people read the report of the Whittaker Comittee, practically none of their recommendations have been acted upon.
Explain please how locking people up for 16 hours a day, often in overcrowded and draconian conditions where they are forced to eat their meals a few feet away from the bucket that serves as a toilet is "Rehabilatative"?

Are these the conditions in all prisons, ie, general prison population

pitythefool

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Well I wouldn't advocate a three strikes and your out system , but placing people with 5-10 convictions in a strictly enforced rehabilitation program (not necessarily incarceration however) with each subsequent conviction involving incarceration and rehabilitation (with these sentences being fully served and no early release interupting the rehabilitation program). These may seem rather "weak" but the amount of court cases involving people with 30+ convictions even at a relatively young age is ridiculous.

Agree the whole way though

Can we now look at current crimes and think of different sentences to suite

pitythefool

hmmm wrote: »

I agree with your premise that the object is public safety. Perhaps you'll also agree with mine that while a criminal is in jail, the chances of them committing a further crime that impacts on the ordinary citizen is zero. With that "solution" in mind, all other solutions need to be judged, and all I can see is a current approach that focuses on the need of the criminals before the need of society.

The conditions in our jails do appear to be, in places, awful. But prison is only one part of our criminal justice system. I don't claim to have any expertise in this area, only sharing the common frustrations of most 'ordinary' people.

For example, why do we have overwhelming use of concurrent rather than consecutive sentences? If murdering someone, go ahead and rape them first if you feel like it as it'll make no difference.

How are there people with 100+ convictions walking the streets? How much misery has that one person inflicted and will go on to inflict?

How can 'being under the influence' be seen to be a mitigating factor in a violent crime? If someone is tanked up with alcohol or drugs, am I as an ordinary citizen expected to know that they should be avoided as they seemingly cannot be held responsible for their own actions.

Billions are pumped into deprived areas, and the majority of citizens in those areas don't commit crimes. Yet when someone does, they get to claim that they came from 'a deprived background' as a mitigation. How does it help the safety of the ordinary public that someone from a 'deprived background' is released earlier than someone who committed the exact same crime who doesn't have this excuse.

CONCURRENT SENTENCES ARE A JOKE! I THINK MOST PEOPLE CAN AGREE ON THIS

Death and Taxes

pitythefool wrote: »

Are these the conditions in all prisons, ie, general prison population

16 hour lock up is, slopping out is still prevalent in several prisons, being compelled to eat in your cell still is. Screened vists are the norm with very poor facilities for children to visit incarcerated parents.
Can somebody point to general examples of the 20 years of Rehabilatative culture in the Irish Prison System, because those who work in them be it as offivers, Teachers, Chaplins, or Probation service will not recognise it.
Indeed even the Probation and Welfare Service has had the word "Welfare" removed from its offical title, indicitive of the Dept of justice mindset.

pitythefool

Interested to know?

What would be the conditions in somewhere like Limerick Prison?

Death and Taxes

pitythefool wrote: »

Interested to know?

What would be the conditions in somewhere like Limerick Prison?

Similar to Mounjoy or Cork.(as previously described)

Wicklowandy

A prison governor once said that the only money he could get was for bigger walls and more bars on windows. The prison system is a political football; we cant complain about the crime rate if we continue to support failed policies.

Google bryn melwyn farm wales, a young offender treatment centre (uk) from the 1990s. It reduced reoffence rates at less cost to taxpayers.

But when the media informed the tax payer what a 'cushy' number these young crims were on, it was closed. Look at reoffence rates from shanganagh closer to home.

In the case of heather perrin, that really is a terrible crime, and the sentence i feel relates to how she faced the case ( protraying a family friend as senile for personal gain ). Jail is more effective deterrent to white collar criminals. But the crime that is more prevalent and affects everyone, needs to be treated in the medium to long term. Rehabilitation is key.

If a young criminal was offered a 50% remission to engage in properly funded services while incarcerated and a 50% increase in sentence not to, i wonder what the change to reoffence rate would be?

pitythefool

Wicklowandy wrote: »

A prison governor once said that the only money he could get was for bigger walls and more bars on windows. The prison system is a political football; we cant complain about the crime rate if we continue to support failed policies.

Google bryn melwyn farm wales, a young offender treatment centre (uk) from the 1990s. It reduced reoffence rates at less cost to taxpayers.

But when the media informed the tax payer what a 'cushy' number these young crims were on, it was closed. Look at reoffence rates from shanganagh closer to home.

In the case of heather perrin, that really is a terrible crime, and the sentence i feel relates to how she faced the case ( protraying a family friend as senile for personal gain ). Jail is more effective deterrent to white collar criminals. But the crime that is more prevalent and affects everyone, needs to be treated in the medium to long term. Rehabilitation is key.

If a young criminal was offered a 50% remission to engage in properly funded services while incarcerated and a 50% increase in sentence not to, i wonder what the change to reoffence rate would be?

That would be interesting alright, it would also be interesting to see how many willing participants reoffend

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Similar to Mounjoy or Cork.(as previously described)

I heard different though, are the rumors of TV and Video games false then?

Death and Taxes

pitythefool wrote: »

I heard different though, are the rumors of TV and Video games false then?

Not sure if you are taking the P*ss or not.
Every cell in prison has TV in it, why not, these people were sentenced to loss of liberty nothing else (TV was introduced in an attempt to lower the self harm and suicide rate). Yes prisoners can have video games, they have to provide them themselves and the conditions attached vary from prison to prison.
I take it from your questions you have never read the report of the Whittaker Comittee or the government policy document response " The Management of Offenders".

oscarBravo

hmmm wrote: »

I agree with your premise that the object is public safety. Perhaps you'll also agree with mine that while a criminal is in jail, the chances of them committing a further crime that impacts on the ordinary citizen is zero.

Sure, and as long as all we care about is public safety for the duration of that individual's time in prison, and if we can safely ignore all the other people who have been churned through the punishment mill in the past, problem solved.

My point is that it's precisely that sort of short-term thinking that we need to get past, and look at the big picture. If we don't want people to commit crimes, we need to help them understand that they are better off going straight, and then support them in their efforts to go straight once they're back outside.

pitythefool wrote: »

What if the prisoner refuses treatment and lacks remorse?

I'm not opposed to the idea of permanent incarceration for people who have no interest in being a part of normal civilisation. Even in Norway, Anders Breivik will quite likely never be a free man.

A belief in rehabilitation as the best approach doesn't equate to a belief that no-one should ever be locked up. I'm all for making early release conditional on full engagement with rehabilitation programs, for example.

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Not sure if you are taking the P*ss or not.
Every cell in prison has TV in it, why not, these people were sentenced to loss of liberty nothing else (TV was introduced in an attempt to lower the self harm and suicide rate). Yes prisoners can have video games, they have to provide them themselves and the conditions attached vary from prison to prison.
I take it from your questions you have never read the report of the Whittaker Comittee or the government policy document response " The Management of Offenders".

Sorry wasnt taking the piss, where would i find this report

Also are prisoners not provided with rec time, and ofered jobs and courses

pitythefool

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, and as long as all we care about is public safety for the duration of that individual's time in prison, and if we can safely ignore all the other people who have been churned through the punishment mill in the past, problem solved.

My point is that it's precisely that sort of short-term thinking that we need to get past, and look at the big picture. If we don't want people to commit crimes, we need to help them understand that they are better off going straight, and then support them in their efforts to go straight once they're back outside.

I'm not opposed to the idea of permanent incarceration for people who have no interest in being a part of normal civilisation. Even in Norway, Anders Breivik will quite likely never be a free man.

A belief in rehabilitation as the best approach doesn't equate to a belief that no-one should ever be locked up. I'm all for making early release conditional on full engagement with rehabilitation programs, for example.

Thanks, what recommednations can you make then?

Brevick only got 21 years!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/24/breivik-verdict-sane-21-years

Death and Taxes

pitythefool wrote: »

Sorry wasnt taking the piss, where would i find this report

Also are prisoners not provided with rec time, and ofered jobs and courses

8 am Breakfast
8.05 to 9 lock up
9 am Open up, slop out, wash.
10 am work or school if available, else locked up
12 noon Lunch taken in locked cell
2pm Open up, work or school of available else locked up
4 pm tea eaten in locked cell
5pm Recreation or locked up.
7pm locked up until 8pm next morning.

most prisoners now allowed a small travel kettle or else a flask in cell to make tea/coffee (coffee purchased at own expense from shop).

School often first thing closed if staff shortages.

Work of any worthwhile and interesting nature very limited.
Mostly just cleaning or kitchen.

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

8 am Breakfast
8.05 to 9 lock up
9 am Open up, slop out, wash.
10 am work or school if available, else locked up
12 noon Lunch taken in locked cell
2pm Open up, work or school of available else locked up
4 pm tea eaten in locked cell
5pm Recreation or locked up.
7pm locked up until 8pm next morning.

most prisoners now allowed a small travel kettle or else a flask in cell to make tea/coffee (coffee purchased at own expense from shop).

School often first thing closed if staff shortages.

Work of any worthwhile and interesting nature very limited.
Mostly just cleaning or kitchen.

What level of education is there?

I have heard of carpentry courses, but not sure if they fall under work or school?

Death and Taxes

pitythefool wrote: »

Thanks, what recommednations can you make then?

Brevick only got 21 years!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/24/breivik-verdict-sane-21-years

Wrong under Norwegian law he can be detained for life.

Death and Taxes

pitythefool wrote: »

What level of education is there?

I have heard of carpentry courses, but not sure if they fall under work or school?

Best advice I can give you, bearing in mind your near voyeuristic obsession with what really happens in Prison is that you log on to the IPS website and read the reports of the various Visiting Comitttes or contact the Prison Chaplincy service and get any of their annual reports for the last few years.
However this thread is about new ideas on criminal punishment as oppossed to penal voyeurism.

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Best advice I can give you, bearing in mind your near voyeuristic obsession with what really happens in Prison is that you log on to the IPS website and read the reports of the various Visiting Comitttes or contact the Prison Chaplincy service and get any of their annual reports for the last few years.
However this thread is about new ideas on criminal punishment as oppossed to penal voyeurism.

Do you not feel that a look at the current system is important if someone was to make recommendations on new punihments

charlemont

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Similar to Mounjoy or Cork.(as previously described)

A and B are similar to the above, D is actually not bad at all, It has a toilet and sink in each cell.

Death and Taxes

pitythefool wrote: »

Do you not feel that a look at the current system is important if someone was to make recommendations on new punihments

And I have shown you where to look.

pitythefool

charlemont wrote: »

A and B are similar to the above, D is actually not bad at all, It has a toilet and sink in each cell.

Which one is D?

charlemont

pitythefool wrote: »

What level of education is there?

I have heard of carpentry courses, but not sure if they fall under work or school?

Irish and History were available but it was only once a week, There was a little used library too, Great place to read as it was practically always empty..They have fabric units too where they make garments mainly for the kitchens.

Can't say I ever heard much about carpentry courses but I'm sure they have them in some prisons.

Death and Taxes

charlemont wrote: »

A and B are similar to the above, D is actually not bad at all, It has a toilet and sink in each cell.

True but you still have to eat sleep and sh*t in the same small space, locked in 16 hours a day.
notice you didn't mention the base.

charlemont

pitythefool wrote: »

Which one is D?

Its to the left of the main gate.

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

And I have shown you where to look.

That was meant to say your voyeur comments were unnecessary especially from someone who already knows so much

But that is off point