My prison ideas: (Possibly Hitlerish) but read anyway

Lingua Franca

Cuchulainn1. wrote: »

So what should we do with a serial tax evader in your opinion?

The usual. Fine them. Confiscate their proceeds. Put them in jail. The whole torture and slave labour part is OTT for such a crime.

Also the fraud part of it?saying garlic was apples.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82871268&postcount=75

I'm pretty sure your granny already knows how to eat eggs.

It might be a stupid law but he still broke it.Woul anyone defend me if I believed drink driving was stupid and done it over a number of years before finally being caught.

I'm not defending him so much as I'm mocking the outrageous suggestions for what do with prisoners in this ridiculous thread.

mfceiling

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

For years people were kneecapped for this sort of anti-social behaviour in Belfast and Derry. It didn't work. As soon as they could walk again they were back out steeling cars.

Well aware of it having grown up in the north.....it did work on one local scumbag - he was a f*cking terror - you name it, he was at it.
Until the boys with the balaclavas actually blew both kneecaps away - he now toodles about town in a wheelchair.

Not saying it was right or wrong, but a lot of people were glad to see it happen.

newmug

Grayson wrote: »

So if I train an animal to attack on sight, who's fault is it when it attacks? The reason you don't attack people or steal is because of the environment you grew up in.

For fluck sake, animals dont have free will and the ability to choose between right and wrong, humans do! That is probably the weakest arguement I have seen on the thread so far.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

what it boils down to is one qustion: what do you wat your justice system to achieve?

Retirbution and punishment?

Rehabilitation?

Why are you seeing it so black and white? Its not torture v playstation! People like myself and the OP are just saying that the present way things are done are a little too lenient, and this is manifesting itself in mickey-joe killing a pensioner while on bail for his 80th conviction. There has to be a balance between being humane and keeping normal people safe.

But to answer your question, the number 1 thing the "justice" system should provide is........ JUSTICE!!! It seems so many victims of crime just dont get fair treatment. Prosecuting a criminal should be about righting the wrongs they have comitted for the victims sake, it should NOT be about enforcing rule of law just because its there.


So, IMO justice should comprise of the following, in order of importance.


1) Remedy the victims greviance. Eg., if you were sexually abused and need to pay E10K per year in counceling to keep your head straight, the criminal should cough up that amount every year till they die. If they cant, the state should, and the criminal should work it off in prison. FAIR is FAIR!

2) Safety for the public. If someone committs murder, sexual assault, deals in drugs, violently assaults etc., then they cannot be trusted around people who dont do these things. They do not deserve to be around others, hence long-to-life sentences would be suitable for these types of criminals. Garlic tax evasion, meh. Just pay the amount of tax you owe, or stay in prison till you work it off (generating electricity on threadmills:D). Then you should be set free.

3) There should definately be some element of punishment. Some deterrent for the criminal never to want to go back to jail again. But it would depend on the crime, and the attitude of the prisoner. Having your freedom taken away is enough for some crimes, but not enough for others. See point above.

4) Rehabilitation. Assuming criminals are not all animals, then they wouldn't really need rehabilitation. The garlic-tax-evader types wouldn't anyway. Junkies would, but thats more of a medical thing than anything else. Psycho's, murderers, paedos? They're hard-wired that way, no amount of rehab will change that. So who does that leave that would require rehab? The wild young-fella that fell in with the wrong crowd, or the 3rd generation family gang member who knows no better? Yea, well they knew what they were doing. Hence the physical punishment should "rehabilitate" them enough. I wouldn't say no to education, but we all got the same primary school education, and those of us that went further had to pay for it. So primary education only. And in all fairness, if someone cant understand primary school stuff, they belong in a psychiatric unit, not jail.

mackg wrote: »

Why is it so important that the jail is underground?

Because of its size. It would hold a million people, hence the landmass of Dublin.

desertcircus wrote: »

There's something weird about the type of person who has clear ideas on how prisons should be run but hasn't considered the concept of rehabilitation in any depth whatsoever. There are plenty of prison systems around the world, and we can learn a lot by looking at how released prisoners behave when getting out of each type. Simply declaring that this is how you'd run a prison, without giving any thought as to whether this makes for a better society, stinks of bloodlust and naked rage and feeds the worst popular impulses.

A) What makes you think people with ideas on how to run prisons haven't considered "the concept of rehabilitation", as you put it? There's something weird about people who make sweeping generalisations IYAM.

You say that like its a bad thing. Sometimes people need a kick in the arse, its a vital part of life.

The King of Moo

crazygeryy wrote: »

the one thing that strikes me about this type of thread is you always get the do gooder pricks who stick up for the animals/scumbags in jail.

Except for this thread, in which you don't get them.

Or the other threads either.

I'm sick of the "bleeding-heart-sticks-up-for-the-scumbags-its-not-their-fault-they-weren't-hugged-enough-as-kids-let-them-go :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:" strawman being dragged out all the time.

There are never any posts like that.
At least there are always a few extreme right-wingers frothing at the mouth to make that strawman understandable.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Their diet should only accomadate the RDA of nutrients they need.

I'm susprised you'd even allow that. Damn liberal.

newmug wrote: »

Why are you seeing it so black and white? Its not torture v playstation! People like myself and the OP are just saying that the present way things are done are a little too lenient, and this is manifesting itself in mickey-joe killing a pensioner while on bail for his 80th conviction. There has to be a balance between being humane and keeping normal people safe.

I asked an honest question, I never said it was black and white. That was YOUR interpretation, kindly phrase it as such in future.

I wanted clarification. I notice I still haven't gotten that.

But to answer your question, the number 1 thing the "justice" system should provide is........ JUSTICE!!! It seems so many victims of crime just dont get fair treatment. Prosecuting a criminal should be about righting the wrongs they have comitted for the victims sake, it should NOT be about enforcing rule of law just because its there.

No, that doesn't answer my question. If anything, it rasies more questions. Such as how you can ask for justice and then say that justice should not be abotu enforcing rule of law.

So, IMO justice should comprise of the following, in order of importance.


1) Remedy the victims greviance. Eg., if you were sexually abused and need to pay E10K per year in counceling to keep your head straight, the criminal should cough up that amount every year till they die. If they cant, the state should, and the criminal should work it off in prison. FAIR is FAIR!

2) Safety for the public. If someone committs murder, sexual assault, deals in drugs, violently assaults etc., then they cannot be trusted around people who dont do these things. They do not deserve to be around others, hence long-to-life sentences would be suitable for these types of criminals. Garlic tax evasion, meh. Just pay the amount of tax you owe, or stay in prison till you work it off (generating electricity on threadmills:D). Then you should be set free.

3) There should definately be some element of punishment. Some deterrent for the criminal never to want to go back to jail again. But it would depend on the crime, and the attitude of the prisoner. Having your freedom taken away is enough for some crimes, but not enough for others. See point above.

4) Rehabilitation. Assuming criminals are not all animals, then they wouldn't really need rehabilitation. The garlic-tax-evader types wouldn't anyway. Junkies would, but thats more of a medical thing than anything else. Psycho's, murderers, paedos? They're hard-wired that way, no amount of rehab will change that. So who does that leave that would require rehab? The wild young-fella that fell in with the wrong crowd, or the 3rd generation family gang member who knows no better? Yea, well they knew what they were doing. Hence the physical punishment should "rehabilitate" them enough. I wouldn't say no to education, but we all got the same primary school education, and those of us that went further had to pay for it. So primary education only. And in all fairness, if someone cant understand primary school stuff, they belong in a psychiatric unit, not jail.

Okay, NOW we're getting somewhere.
1 - I agree.
2 - This is an opinion, not a statement of fact. Plenty of people have come out of prison and made a life for themselves.
3 - There is. Unless you think spening 22 hours a day in a 9sq m room "luxary". Even if you have playstations and televisions (which, I agree, should be taken away).
4 - Wow! So much bull****! Just abotu every sentence is opinion (and ill-informed opinion at that) that you are trying to pass off as fact. You also assume that everyone reacts to every situation the same? Come on!

In short, do some research before you post **** like this again.

A) What makes you think people with ideas on how to run prisons haven't considered "the concept of rehabilitation", as you put it? There's something weird about people who make sweeping generalisations IYAM.

Does this include the ones in point 4 above?

You say that like its a bad thing. Sometimes people need a kick in the arse, its a vital part of life.

It is. It'll lead to more violent crime. When they get out (and you can't keep every prisioned inside for life) how do you think they're going to react?

Shoutcast Ireland

i would do it the way they have it in usa is make them work while they are locked up so they are earning money for the prison system.

Maudi

Chemical Burn wrote: »

Sorry if this has been done before but my thread searching hasn't yielded anything similar

Prisons should be (for both men and women):

7 a.m. wake up and have breakfast of porridge or cereal and a glass of water.

8 a.m. off to work (for no pay, slave labour to save money for country)

12 or 1 p.m. Lunch of porridge and a glass of water

5 p.m. return and have dinner (meat and or veg) and a glass of water.

6 p.m. back into cell (with bed folded up) prisoners must stand up in cell for 3 hours (this will be monitored by prison guards periodically passing through the corridors, got this idea from Locked Up Abroad, Japan).

9 p.m. prisoner allowed to lie down.

10 p.m. lights out.

Visits once per week, 3 hours at a time.

Radio and telly allowed 1 hour per week.

Orange jumpsuits for uniforms

What do you think ??

As a by the way, if one was to come into some money, could he or she open up his or her own building and run a private establishment charge the government for housing inmates, and do it for a fraction of the price that the goverment-based prison services will do it for, again, creating jobs and saving government money.

DISCUSS, and keep it civil (sorry for doing your job there mods <<<<< Hope the boards union won't mind :P )

visits at three hours each!!its bleeding heart liberalists like you have the system the way it is..and of course you could open your own prison!sure most of em in americky are private run.

TheoBane

I say we should build one massive area with 20 feet tall walls

Arm them all with various weapons

Turn the cameras on

And let the games begin

9959

mfceiling wrote: »

Well aware of it having grown up in the north.....it did work on one local scumbag - he was a f*cking terror - you name it, he was at it.
Until the boys with the balaclavas actually blew both kneecaps away - he now toodles about town in a wheelchair.

Not saying it was right or wrong, but a lot of people were glad to see it happen.

As 'The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu' might say: "It's Grim Up North"

Hamiltonion

Cuchulainn1. wrote: »

It might be a stupid law but he still broke it.Woul anyone defend me if I believed drink driving was stupid and done it over a number of years before finally being caught.

That mentality of the law is the law is BS. Just because it's the law dosen't mean it's always right

Civil disobedience is sometimes necessary

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hamiltonion wrote: »

That mentality of the law is the law is BS. Just because it's the law dosen't mean it's always right

Civil disobedience is sometimes necessary

Which is fine, but you need to look at getting the law changed, not discuss what happens to people who brak it.

Civil disobediance, for me, is a bit on the selfish side, as it assumes everyone feels the way you do, which is not nssecarily the case. I like profit obstructionism.

crazygeryy

http://news.sky.com/story/1043203/egypt-death-sentence-for-football-rioters

that's the way to do it.how many people in egypt going to chance rioting after that ruling.

TwoShedsJackson

crazygeryy wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/story/1043203/egypt-death-sentence-for-football-rioters

that's the way to do it.how many people in egypt going to chance rioting after that ruling.

So you're in favour of an oppressive theocratic style of government then, are you?

You do realise that ruling actually sparked an immediate riot, yes?

Bullseye1

tayto lover wrote: »

Prison should only be for people who are too dangerous to be on the streets i.e. murderers, rapists and paedos.
The rest should have to do community service like cleaning streets, cutting hedges, maintaining parks, painting out graffiti etc while well supervised. If they refuse then send them to prison.
Prison should not be a picnic but not too harsh either as they have already lost their freedom.

I'd be happy with this but would say serious crime like armed robbery should be a prison sentense. I've no problem with rehabilitation as part of serving time.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

crazygeryy wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/story/1043203/egypt-death-sentence-for-football-rioters

that's the way to do it.how many people in egypt going to chance rioting after that ruling.

a lot of them judging by your link, why dio you ask?

Grayson

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'd be happy with this but would say serious crime like armed robbery should be a prison sentense. I've no problem with rehabilitation as part of serving time.

Definitely. Any sort of agressive assault or robbery should see prison time (except for some rare exceptions. I can't think of any of the top of my head, but just in case).

I'm actually ok with much longer sentances if they include some good rehabilition. They can be the sort of thing, say 20 years for armed robbery (just a figure off the top of my head) but up to 2/3 or 3/4 of it can be dismissed if they've shown suitable efforts at rehabilitation. Of course, that depends on us being able to give them the option/chance to rehabilitate.

Grayson

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

a lot of them judging by your link, why dio you ask?

I always assumed it took a lot of people to riot. can 5 people have a riot? I wonder what the rough number is.

crazygeryy

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

So you're in favour of an oppressive theocratic style of government then, are you?

You do realise that ruling actually sparked an immediate riot, yes?

opressive Theocratic no not exactly.but I've had enough of criminals being left out on bail and rapists being given suspended sentences etc.etc
it's time we updated our outdated justice,sentencing and prison system.

and i did realise that yes.jail them too.

newmug

I wonder how many previous convictions the killer of Garda Adrian Donohue had? How many times was rehabilitation wasted tried on him? Would Garda Donohue still be coming home to help his kids with their homework tonight if that cowardly scumbag lowlife had been safely locked away from the rest of us?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

crazygeryy wrote: »

opressive Theocratic no not exactly.but I've had enough of criminals being left out on bail and rapists being given suspended sentences etc.etc
it's time we updated our outdated justice,sentencing and prison system.

and i did realise that yes.jail them too.

Then what is the connection with the situation in Egypt....??

I think it's purly the sentenceing that pisses people off and the inconsistenciss amongst them rather that the conditions in jail. Jails are most certinaly NOT outdated simple because they refuse to torure people.

Grayson

newmug wrote: »

I wonder how many previous convictions the killer of Garda Adrian Donohue had? How many times was rehabilitation wasted tried on him? Would Garda Donohue still be coming home to help his kids with their homework tonight if that cowardly scumbag lowlife had been safely locked away from the rest of us?

see, here's the thing about rehabailiitation. Imagine without out it 50% of people reoffend and with it 25% do.

Just because it fails for some doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile for the public and the criminals. We still end up with less robberies, less assaults, less killings etc...
(I'll ignore crimes of a sexual nature. they have a different motivation. It's not that i believe they can't be helped, but that involves treatment as opposed to training etc. I have no idea about reoffend rates etc..)

Edit: and just to add, if someone does have all the best options available to them and they fall into their old ways it's their fault. And there's no excuse for committing a crime like the one you mentioned.

I belive that punishment without rehabilitation is a waste of time and money. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a punishment aspect. And killing a police officer calls for a very large punishment.

newmug

Grayson wrote: »

see, here's the thing about rehabailiitation. Imagine without out it 50% of people reoffend and with it 25% do.

Just because it fails for some doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile for the public and the criminals. We still end up with less robberies, less assaults, less killings etc...

I fully agree, never said otherwise. But, here's the thing about appropriate sentencing: if that baxtard was locked up, Garda Donohue would still be alive.

So where do you strike a balance? On one hand, we have certain people on here gushing on about prisoners rights and how its not their fault, they were raised in bad circumstances etc., on the other we have less sympathetic people who themselves have chosen to obey the law rather than break it, even if obeying it was harder, and who wish for justice to be applied equally to everyone, and punishment to be administered when appropriate.

In the meantime, we have rapists walking free and gardai being murdered. Where are the rape victims rights, what about Garda Donohue's main right, the right to life?

I know where I stand in all of this, and I can safely say that my conscience is clear.




EDIT: @Greyson, so you've done a 180 on your views then? Now you agree criminals actually should be responsible for their actions and there should be an element of punishment for crime? Wow, thats some turnaround!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

newmug wrote: »

I fully agree, never said otherwise. But, here's the thing about appropriate sentencing: if that baxtard was locked up, Garda Donohue would still be alive.

So where do you strike a balance? On one hand, we have certain people on here gushing on about prisoners rights and how its not their fault, they were raised in bad circumstances etc., on the other we have less sympathetic people who themselves have chosen to obey the law rather than break it, even if obeying it was harder, and who wish for justice to be applied equally to everyone, and punishment to be administered when appropriate.

In the meantime, we have rapists walking free and gardai being murdered. Where are the rape victims rights, what about Garda Donohue's main right, the right to life?

I know where I stand in all of this, and I can safely say that my conscience is clear.




EDIT: @Greyson, so you've done a 180 on your views then? Now you agree criminals actually should be responsible for their actions and there should be an element of punishment for crime? Wow, thats some turnaround!

Point out one person who has done that here.

Also, there is a lot of blind assumption in your post: how do you know that the Gardai killer has any previous convictions?

crazygeryy

newmug wrote: »

I wonder how many previous convictions the killer of Garda Adrian Donohue had? How many times was rehabilitation wasted tried on him? Would Garda Donohue still be coming home to help his kids with their homework tonight if that cowardly scumbag lowlife had been safely locked away from the rest of us?

safely locked away or executed. he wouldn't be shooting many Gardai then would he.they don't deserve any more. if you live by the sword then you should die by it.

Sulla Felix

The Mustard wrote: »

I have no doubt that money could be saved without inflicting needless punishments on prisoners.

If Alan Shatter was up for it, I'd say an entrepreneur could find up one of those now empty newish hotels built from reinforced concrete during the last ten years, buy it from NAMA, convert it to accommodate the necessary security arrangements, and have it up and running as a prison in no time flat.

As far as I am concerned, the punishment is imprisonment, so there is no need for any unnecessarily harsh regimes or any other wanton carry-on.

I'd be all for renting the fc*kers Playstations to use in their cells/rooms, provided that someone could pay by credit card. If they wanted to bring in their own Playstations, I'd have no problems with that. If they wanted to bring in their own laptops, I wouldn't have any problem with that, provided that there was no illegal activity or access to the net for paedos.

I'd even be on for giving them wifi for their laptops, if the price wasn't prohibitive.

I'd be on for facilitating Fás courses in the prison, if that could be done

If the prisoners/guests break the rules, they get sent to the punishment floor, no Playstations, no laptops, no internet, no luxuries, no prison pay, nothing.

Where would you save money? Wages and pensions. Staff could be paid reasonable private sector style wages, without massive pensions. Overtime could be strictly limited.

You could probably outsource the food to a local caterer, at least temporarily, until you get up and running.

I reckon you could save a fortune and pacify the prisoners to make life easy at the same time. If it was allowed, the problem with lack of prison spaces could be fixed very soon.

And someone could make a fortune at the same time.

Scotland does something similar, at least regarding punishments, to help encourage inmates away from drugs.

Those who test clean are kept in a seperate wing, can have radios, tvs, playstations whatever they want, purchased with their wages from the prison factory/laundery whatever.
They get piss tests at random intervals, and if they fail, they get kicked out of the wing and their stuff confiscated. There's a cooldown before you can even apply to get back iun.

Can't remember what prison exactly.

annascott

I completely understand the ethos of wanting prison to be tough and not a holiday camp, but the whole 'standing up in cell' thing is cruel and doesn't achieve anything. If the use of tv and recreation is limited, the boredom should be enough. Also, the diet should be balanced and nutritious to promote good health. Cigarettes and confectionery could be banned to enforce the punishment. I would encourage compulsory education - everything from basic literacy and vocational training to degrees. At least they would leave better equipped for life than they went in.with an ability to find work, no one would be fat and they would all be non smokers...

Collie D

newmug wrote: »

I wonder how many previous convictions the killer of Garda Adrian Donohue had? How many times was rehabilitation wasted tried on him? Would Garda Donohue still be coming home to help his kids with their homework tonight if that cowardly scumbag lowlife had been safely locked away from the rest of us?

Stating opinion as fact? Or do you know who did and it and his criminal history?

If the former then this post is almost as ridiculous as your one about the ideal prison.

If the latter then you know the number, ring up and inform the Gardaí.

:rolleyes:

Grayson

newmug wrote: »

I fully agree, never said otherwise. But, here's the thing about appropriate sentencing: if that baxtard was locked up, Garda Donohue would still be alive.

So where do you strike a balance? On one hand, we have certain people on here gushing on about prisoners rights and how its not their fault, they were raised in bad circumstances etc., on the other we have less sympathetic people who themselves have chosen to obey the law rather than break it, even if obeying it was harder, and who wish for justice to be applied equally to everyone, and punishment to be administered when appropriate.

In the meantime, we have rapists walking free and gardai being murdered. Where are the rape victims rights, what about Garda Donohue's main right, the right to life?

I know where I stand in all of this, and I can safely say that my conscience is clear.




EDIT: @Greyson, so you've done a 180 on your views then? Now you agree criminals actually should be responsible for their actions and there should be an element of punishment for crime? Wow, thats some turnaround!

Point out one place where I haven't said it? I've said that the point of imprisonment should not be entirely punishment. If we are only locking people away as punishment then we are doing nothing to help them reform their lives.

I believe that criminals should get a fair trial and face their punishment whatever that is. If it involved a prison sentance there should be adequate rehabilitation provided. Otherwise we are just releasing potential criminals back into the community.
I've also said i don't believe a man deserves to be killed for armed robbery. He deserved to get a trial and be jailed. But death is not something "deserved". The word deserved implies merit or earned. That implies that anyone who commits that crime should be killed.

As for the post about the garda.
1) as someone pointed out, we don't know.
2) even if they have prior convictions it doesn't mean rehabilition doesn't work. If 50% of people fail to rehabilitate and we jail two thieves, then it means at some point we are releasing 1 thief. If we don't bother than we are releasing 2. Rehabilitation is the smart choice. But a lot of people would rather fore go that and have daily floggings instead.

Higher

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Not sure. There is a prison in the UAE (Saudi Arabia) that is like a 5 star hotel with education etc. They have almost zero reoffending and very successful outcomes.

However, the inmates are political prisoners rather than criminals so the results might not work in a normal prison.

mattjack

Higher wrote: »

I know, I know.