Life-sentence prisoners ‘should get in-cell telephones’ (and Skype, own menus, etc)

CrankyHaus

No

Grayson wrote: »

No there isn't. I don't murder and rape because I might go to prison if i do. Prison sentences aren't what keep people in line.

Your mistake is in assuming that everyone is a good and law-abiding person like you. Sadly this is not the case. A minority of people will not consent to obey the law and it is necessary to coerce them into doing so, while attempting to rehabilitate them so that they obey the law in future.

Graces7

The poll title sounds like sheltered accommodation for old folk and probably better set up..

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Grayson wrote: »

No there isn't. I don't murder and rape because I might go to prison if i do. Prison sentences aren't what keep people in line.

Wow - overturning decades of philosophical and psychological study in a single line. Well done.

You refer to yourself - what of other people - do you imagine everyone is like you?

Grayson wrote: »

And it's been shown that rehabilitation works. It really does. not always but it does lower the amount of reoffenders compared to just punishment. That means less crimes and less victims.

Of course it does, nobody I've seen has argued that it doesn't.

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Harika wrote: »

You still imprison them, but there you offer job training or education so they have a chance outside. Cause let's face it, if they come out with no job or no outlook on a normal life they will drop back to crime.

Yet again, nobody I've seen has argued against this - who are you guys actually arguing with?

Or is it the case that you are putting up a strawman argument to hide your real point, which seems to be that you don't believe criminals should suffer any consequences at all?

Harika

Gravelly wrote: »

Of course it does, nobody I've seen has argued that it doesn't.

And nobody denies that offenders shouldn't go to prison, so we are all in line?

Glass fused light

Wanderer78 wrote: »

thankfully ive never had the chance, but a some stage we have to realise, our current approach to these issues is nothing but diabolic

What's your solution for a paid hitman convicted of killing the target of the hit and an innocent bystander?

Or how about a man who has been convicted of killing a woman for his sexual pleasure?

Grayson

No

Chewbacca wrote: »

Um yeah sure...I hope they "learn their lesson".

Listen, if someone intentionally takes someone elses life, there should be no release, there should be no rehabilitation, there should be no touchy feelyness given to them.

They intentionally killed someone. Im not concerned with them potentially reoffending as they shouldnt be let walk the streets again. Im not concerned with using them as a deterrent against future crimes by other people. Im not concerned if they decide to kill anyone else while they are in prison.

In my opinion, if you have intentionally killed someone you have waived your rights to any type of a life.

Except every murder is different. You could have a woman who's been beaten every day for years. She then lashes out at the husband one day. You could have someone defending themselves. You could have someone taking revenge for the death of a loved one. You could have someone killing a spouse because they don't want to be married. Hannah Arendt talked about the intentionality of the action rather than the action itself. Why someone killed is as important as the fact that they killed.

Each of those scenarios is different and we need to be able to adapt to the situation as it arises. I do think there are people who are currently beyond rehabilitation. The criminally insane for want of a better word. But there are others who could be rehabilitated. A blanket sentence on everyone for the same crime doesn't make sense.

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Harika wrote: »

And nobody denies that offenders shouldn't go to prison, so we are all in line?

Several people have argued that "prison isn't a deterrent"and variations thereof, which one can only presume means they are against the concept of prisons, or am I reading them incorrectly?

Signore Fancy Pants

This post has been deleted.

Harika

Gravelly wrote: »

Several people have argued that "prison isn't a deterrent"and variations thereof, which one can only presume means they are against the concept of prisons, or am I reading them incorrectly?

Yes you are reading that incorrectly, prison doesn't deter people else countries with the strictest punishments would have the lowest prison populations, what is not happening. Even the contrary, countries that put more money into rehabilitation instead of harsher sentences have lower return rates.
Cause do you really think a criminal is studying the law book before committing a crime?

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Harika wrote: »

Yes you are reading that incorrectly, prison doesn't deter people else countries with the strictest punishments would have the lowest prison populations, what is not happening. Even the contrary, countries that put more money into rehabilitation instead of harsher sentences have lower return rates.
Cause do you really think a criminal is studying the law book before committing a crime?

Yet again, you are arguing a point that wasn't made. I asked if the people who are against the concept of prison believed that there should be no prisons. You, again, go off on a completely different tangent. It makes you look dishonest if you wont at least attempt to debate the points raised, rather than points you raise yourself and attribute to other posters.

Sore_toe

Wanderer78 wrote: »

thankfully ive never had the chance, but a some stage we have to realise, our current approach to these issues is nothing but diabolic

The problem with our current approach is its too Liberal as is the case with everything in this country

The parents of scumbags need hard questions asked and there welfare cut, enough of this blaming every crime on inequality, most people in Ireland were poor sixty years ago, they were still decent

seamus

Who is against the concept of prison?

Wanderer78

Sore_toe wrote: »

The problem with our current approach is its too Liberal as is the case with everything in this country

too liberal, please explain?

Sore_toe

Gravelly wrote: »

Apparently all he needs is a hug and a college certificate, and he'd be as right as rain.

Or if he lived in a fully fledged socialist state, he'd be right as rain, oh wait,. These guys don't do those things out of any political position, they do it because they are plain bad, nothing more mundane than that

The problems in Ireland today such as crime stem from the fact that it's all Liberal thought operating behind the scenes

Sore_toe

Wanderer78 wrote: »

too liberal, please explain?

No way I'm going down an ideological rabbit hole with you where you blame neo liberalism for anto gaining fifty convictions before his. 20th birthday

Wanderer78

Sore_toe wrote: »

No way I'm going down an ideological rabbit hole with you where you blame neo liberalism for anto gaining fifty convictions before his. 20th birthday

fair enough

Harika

Gravelly wrote: »

Yet again, you are arguing a point that wasn't made. I asked if the people who are against the concept of prison believed that there should be no prisons. You, again, go off on a completely different tangent. It makes you look dishonest if you wont at least attempt to debate the points raised, rather than points you raise yourself and attribute to other posters.

No you assume what people want to say while they say something different. :rolleyes:

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

seamus wrote: »

Who is against the concept of prison?

Lots of you it would seem:

Wanderer78 wrote: »

incarceration is a fairly **** way of dealing with complex human behavioural problems, effectively creating an 'out of sight, out of mind' approach, which in fact is highly reactive towards these issues

Wanderer78 wrote: »

In the individual case, maybe, but that may not work within the confines of incarceration, many a murder has occurred within prisons

Grayson wrote: »

I've mentioned it before on boards but revenge and vengeance come from a very primal place. Seeing people punished releases feel good endorphins. It's a very base human emotion. So it makes perfect sense that we want to see people punished.

However logically it doesn't make sense. It does nothing to protect people. Someone who robs and assaults someone goes to prison. Let's say they get out 5 years later. They could do it again. We have 5 years to try and change that person. To try and rehabilitate them. We should do everything we can. But rather than do that we punish them. We justify it because we say punishment is a deterrent even though we now know it isn't. Really we do it because it feels good.

Our approach to criminality should be evidence based best practice. Not what feels good.

Grayson wrote: »

That was the point of prisons and still is in Ireland. The point people are making here is that it doesn't make society any better

seamus wrote: »

If you don't care about rehabilitation, then why release anyone? If the purpose of locking someone up for a short amount of time, isn't to discourage them from doing it again, then why let them out at all? Why is permanent incarceration not the punishment for all crime?

If you want a prison system that just punishes offenders, then you should just lock all offenders up for life. Why release them at all?

Grayson wrote: »

But why the need to punish? Like I mentioned before it's a human desire to see people punished. Punishment rarely works as a deterrent or to prevent reoffending.

Harika wrote: »

What has shown the least return rate is education and apprenticeships.

Grayson wrote: »

I don't murder and rape because I might go to prison if i do. Prison sentences aren't what keep people in line.
.

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Harika wrote: »

No you assume what people want to say while they say something different. :rolleyes:

Nope, basing it on exactly what they say in their posts, unlike you, who answers points that were never made!

seamus

Gravelly wrote: »

Lots of you it would seem:

Eh, no, I don't see any of that there.

Try again maybe?

Hint: "Prison" is a place, not a concept.

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

seamus wrote: »

Eh, no, I don't see any of that there.

Try again maybe?

Of course you don't, because you don't want to. That's fine, as you are a little embarrassed by you idealogical position.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The should have more reform than punishment

seamus wrote: »

This is why I don't really understand those who would oppose rehabilitation.

If you don't care about rehabilitation, then why release anyone? If the purpose of locking someone up for a short amount of time, isn't to discourage them from doing it again, then why let them out at all? Why is permanent incarceration not the punishment for all crime?

Of course, at a fundamental level the purpose of a fixed prison sentence, is to discourage reoffending.

And once you accept that simple fact, then you can begin to understand why reforming prison to further reduce reoffending should be the aim of all prison systems, even if we don't get to satisfy our violent revenge fantasies.

If you want a prison system that just punishes offenders, then you should just lock all offenders up for life. Why release them at all?

You’ve actually made the case against rehabilitation as the primary reason for incarceration there, yourself.

For if prison wasn’t about deterrent or punishment, and was in fact primarily about rehabilitation, then career criminals, or suspected career criminals would be incarcerated for life, subject to the whims of a parole board and other worthies. If the board deemed somebody a risk to society and unreformed he would stay in. I know that applies to some life sentences now in some jurisdictions, but it is limited. With a full rehabilitate system you could get life for minor crimes.

Since somebody who is born in a criminal environment probably isn’t going to stop being a mafia or Mexican drug cartel member, just because he’s learned to cook and sew in prison, a State could lock gang members up for life as unreformable.

(The opposite of that is that somebody who has committed a serious crime but is genuinely remorseful could get off immediately but in practice I wouldn’t see this happen).

Authoritarian states often had rehabilitation programs for political “deviants”. Rehabilitation isn’t as liberal as people who promote it think.

On the other hand punishment is simple. 2 years for that crime because it’s not as bad as that other one which gets 10 years.

seamus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You’ve actually made the case against rehabilitation as the primary reason for incarceration there, yourself.

For if prison wasn’t about deterrent or punishment, and was in fact primarily about rehabilitation, then career criminals, or suspected career criminals, would be incarcerated for life, subject to the whims of a parole board and other worthies. If they deemed somebody a risk to society and unreformed he would stay in.

Yep, that sounds reasonable. If someone cannot be rehabilitated, then it makes no sense to set them free to reoffend.

You need alternative solutions to house these people appropriately away from the main population and other offenders.

With a full rehabilitate system you could get life for minor crimes.

Now you're making a leap and you're assuming the system would have to take a "3 strikes" approach or similar, take a hard line. It doesn't.

For example, if someone spends 5 years inside for a serious assault and five years after release gets done on a small possession charge, that doesn't require that he be locked up permanently. It also doesn't mean his original rehabilitation failed.

Some classes of crimes, like robbery and assault, see habitual reoffenders. Others, such as murder, don't. If someone is done for assault and released, and then never assaults someone again, then they've been rehabilitated - even if they get done for another unrelated class of crime at some other time.

Since somebody who is born in a criminal environment probably isn’t going to stop being a mafia, or Mexican drug cartel member just because he’s learned to cook and sew in prison State’s could lock gang members up for life as unreformable.

This is pure opinion and has no bearing on the discussion. The statistics show otherwise.

On the other hand punishment is simple. 2 years for that crime because it’s not as bad as that other one which gets 10 years.

Right. But if you don't care about the rehabilitation (or if it's a secondary purpose), then why let them out at all? Why waste your time and money continually having to catch and punish the same people for breaking the law? Just lock them up permanently when they break the law and problem solved.

That's a rhetorical question; you release them in the hope that they won't have to be punished again. In the hope that they've "learned their lesson". Because you hope they've been rehabilitated.

So why should we not try to enhance the effectiveness of rehabilitation as much as possible?

Grayson

No

Gravelly wrote: »

Lots of you it would seem:

You quoted me three times there. can you point out where I said I was against prisons? I've simply said that we can and should attempt to rehabilitate when people are imprisoned. I never said i was against prisons

It's a really bad attempt to misrepresent what i said.

You also quoted my post where I said we should have a best practice evidence based approach. Can I assume since you quoted it you're against evidence based approaches? You think research is bad?

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Grayson wrote: »

You quoted me three times there. can you point out where I said I was against prisons? I've simply said that we can and should attempt to rehabilitate when people are imprisoned. I never said i was against

It's a really bad attempt to misrepresent what i said.

You also quoted my post where I said we should have a best practice evidence based approach. Can I assume since you quoted it you're against evidence based approaches? You think research is bad?

I quoted you. If you don't like what's in those quotes, tough.

I don't even know what to say to the strawman in your second paragraph, other than toask you to look back at my posts where I myself have quoted that the evidence from numerous studies (as well as real life scenarios) is that without some kind of punishment, criminal behaviour increases.

Grayson

No

Gravelly wrote: »

I quoted you. If you don't like what's in those quotes, tough.

I don't even know what to say to the strawman in your second paragraph, other than toask you to look back at my posts where I myself have quoted that the evidence from numerous studies (as well as real life scenarios) is that without some kind of punishment, criminal behaviour increases.

You said I was against prisons. I'm not. I haven't said it, I haven't implied it. The posts you quoted say no such thing. It looks like you just randomly quoted posts. Show me how anything I said implies I'm against prisons.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The should have more reform than punishment

seamus wrote: »

Yep, that sounds reasonable. If someone cannot be rehabilitated, then it makes no sense to set them free to reoffend.

You need alternative solutions to house these people appropriately away from the main population and other offenders.

Don’t agree with that at all. If the crime merits a punishment of x years incarceration, that’s it.

Now you're making a leap and you're assuming the system would have to take a "3 strikes" approach or similar, take a hard line. It doesn't.

No I’m assuming it’s a pure rehabilitate prison sentence. Supporters of rehabilitation don’t like to deal with what they mean by rehabilitation - but it has to mean that an official body decides when someone is released.

For example, if someone spends 5 years inside for a serious assault and five years after release gets done on a small possession charge, that doesn't require that he be locked up permanently. It also doesn't mean his original rehabilitation failed.

He actually may not be released after 5 years because it would be up to a parole/rehabilitation board. In a full rehabilitation system all subsequent crimes would be an indication of failure to reform and could lead to indefinite incarceration.

Some classes of crimes, like robbery and assault, see habitual reoffenders. Others, such as murder, don't. If someone is done for assault and released, and then never assaults someone again, then they've been rehabilitated - even if they get done for another unrelated class of crime at some other time.

What happens if they do assault again? Is there any reason to ever release them again the first parole/rehabilitation board failed to protect society? As for murder not being habitual, that’s true but in a pure rehabilitation system it would mean low, or no, incarceration for murder. We’d all get one shot at that.

This is pure opinion and has no bearing on the discussion. The statistics show otherwise.

Really? The stats show that mafia members reform?

Right. But if you don't care about the rehabilitation (or if it's a secondary purpose), then why let them out at all? Why waste your time and money continually having to catch and punish the same people for breaking the law? Just lock them up permanently when they break the law and problem solved.

I like the way you answered this for me. In the “that’s a rhethorical question” part. I won’t quote it.

I made this clear. In a punishment system you match the punishment to the crime. Once done your done. If not reformed you get arrested for the next crime, but only when caught and convicted.

It’s not about protecting society after you get out, except during the parole period (but your sentence isn’t over then) and it’s only partially about deterrent. Once you’ve done your crime you’ve repaid your debt. Hopefully you are now reformed by the length of the time you spent in there and some programs you may have taken, but that’s not necessary for release. Rehabilitation is a nice to have but doesn’t affect your release.

Nothing illiberal about that system. Rehabilitation with its echoes of the Soviets sounds sinister.

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Grayson wrote: »

You said I was against prisons. I'm not. I haven't said it, I haven't implied it. The posts you quoted say no such thing. It looks like you just randomly quoted posts. Show me how anything I said implies I'm against prisons.

Again? Jaysus you're persistent.

Grayson wrote: »

I've mentioned it before on boards but revenge and vengeance come from a very primal place. Seeing people punished releases feel good endorphins. It's a very base human emotion. So it makes perfect sense that we want to see people punished.

However logically it doesn't make sense. It does nothing to protect people. Someone who robs and assaults someone goes to prison. Let's say they get out 5 years later. They could do it again. We have 5 years to try and change that person. To try and rehabilitate them. We should do everything we can. But rather than do that we punish them. We justify it because we say punishment is a deterrent even though we now know it isn't. Really we do it because it feels good.

Our approach to criminality should be evidence based best practice. Not what feels good.

The post above. Are you, or are you not, arguing against punishing crime? The only punishment for serious crime in this country is prison time. Therefore, you appear to be arguing against prison. If you are not, perhaps you should make it clearer for those of us who can only read your words, and not your mind.

Grayson wrote: »

That was the point of prisons and still is in Ireland. The point people are making here is that it doesn't make society any better

See above again. Is this not arguing against prison? Do the words you use mean something different to the usual understanding of them?

Grayson wrote: »

But why the need to punish? Like I mentioned before it's a human desire to see people punished. Punishment rarely works as a deterrent or to prevent reoffending.

And again.......

Grayson wrote: »

I don't murder and rape because I might go to prison if i do. Prison sentences aren't what keep people in line.
.

Slightly different tack this time, but the same argument - you say prison sentences don't keep people in line - the only meaning any normal person can draw from this is that you are against prison sentences.

Are you telling us that, despite consistently arguing against prisons and prison sentences, you actually mean you're all for them? Can you not see how I and others might get the opposite meaning from your posts?

seamus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

No I’m assuming it’s a pure rehabilitate prison sentence. Supporters of rehabilitation don’t like to deal with what they mean by rehabilitation - but it has to mean that an official body decides when someone is released.

And again leaping to a conclusion that anyone is talking about some kind of extreme "pure" rehab system.

You operate on a statistical basis, do the things that work, avoid the things that don't, and avoid getting sucked into black holes of diminishing return.

Much like you treat cancer not by treating it and then continually testing it to make sure it's gone, you embark on a "pathway", that is to say a regime of treatment that you continue right to the end, regardless of whether your tests halfway through tell you it's gone. This approach is based on a taking large-population statistics and then doing the things that statistically have the best final outcome.

Likewise you develop a rehab protocol for given classes of crimes, adjust them to the offender, and apply them and release them when their programme has finished. Observe and study and collate statistics, then adjust the programme to improve the outcome. With the aim of reducing the reoffending rate.

The individual offender is of less relevance; what's relevant is finding a system that results in widespread improvements, not a system that tries to "fix" everyone. Because everyone can't be fixed. All we can do is improve things generally.

The "diminishing returns" thing I refer to is that you'll find that as the length of a programme increases, its effectiveness decreases. So let's say that the assault programme is 3 years long, and after those 3 years, 90% of offenders don't reoffend. You'll find that if you add a fourth year, you can only get that up to 92%. Add a fifth year, and it only becomes 92.5% And so on.

I made this clear. In a punishment system you match the punishment to the crime. Once done your done. If not reformed you get arrested for the next crime, but only when caught and convicted.

And screw society, right? The aim should always be crime reduction, not increased punishment (unless the latter achieves the former). Every crime leaves a victim in its wake. Punishment alone doesn't fix that.

Nothing illiberal about that system. Rehabilitation with its echoes of the Soviets sounds sinister.

G'way with your american identity politics rubbish.