nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

[Deleted User]

Perhaps the logic behind this is that if prisoners have more access to technological ways of contacting their family they'll be a bit more aware of their lack of freedom with that regular reminder of what they're missing? Is this a liberal way of punishing them? I was speaking with John Lonergan recently and his big thing about the whole prison system is the near absence of single-cell prisons - cells which were designed for one prisoner are almost always housing more than one prisoner. He was very passionate about the need to end that. Anyway:

The Irish Prison Service should consider providing life-sentence inmates with telephones in their cells to prevent them becoming institutionalised, an internal report states.

Video-conferencing facilities such as Skype should also be made available so prisoners can stay in touch with family members living abroad or relatives who have difficulty visiting because they are not very mobile, it says.

The report, released to The Irish Times under the Freedom of Information Act, was compiled by a committee made up of staff from several criminal justice agencies, including two prison governors.... Others include the expansion of “Independent Living Skills Units” which grant prisoners a large amount of freedom within prisons, including setting their own menus. The report recommends “consideration should be given to provision of in-cell phones (subject to normal governance and restrictions) for people serving life sentences to maintain regular contact with their families – as is being piloted in the ILSU in Wheatfield [Prison in Dublin].”

The report continued: “Video-conferencing, such as Skype, should be made available in all prisons to facilitate contact with elderly or less mobile relatives, and family living in other jurisdictions.”... The proportion of the prison population serving life terms has risen steadily over the years, from 4.5 per cent in 2001 to nearly 9 per cent today – one of the highest rates in Europe.

The Irish Times: Life-sentence prisoners ‘should get in-cell telephones’

Very surprised at the last sentence. But how long exactly is a "life sentence"? According to the usually very reliable Citizens' Information website: 'Prisoners serving very long sentences (including life sentences), are normally reviewed on a number of occasions over a number of years before any substantial concessions would be recommended by the Board. The final decision as to whether a life sentenced prisoner is released, rests solely with the Minister. The length of time spent in custody by offenders serving life sentences can vary substantially. Of those prisoners serving life sentences who have been released, the average sentence served in prison is approximately 12 years. (Source).
12 years is the average life sentence? Jesus. Why don't they rename it?

Is the penal system going the right way with such "reform-minded" proposals, or should prisons be seen as places of punishment first and foremost where reform has no place?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Graces7

seamus wrote: »

Realistically that can mean a few things. For example, if the crime rate drops, or the number of convictions for non-capital offences drops, then you have less non-life prisoners and so the proportion of life prisoners goes up, even though you're not having more murders.

Or if you do have more murders, even a spike of them like we did in 2006/2007/2008, then those prisoners end up skewing the stats for the entire duration of their sentence. We could have no murders for 12 years after a huge spike and the proportion of life prisoners would still be used.

Because it's still a life sentence. Indefinite and unlimited. As mentioned, the recidivism rate for murder is very low, so there seems to be little purpose in keeping someone locked up for their entire life. What's being gained?

The statistics on this are pretty clear. When you treat offenders like animals, they're way more likely to re-offend than when you treat them like people. Norway has a prison system that makes "hang 'em high" conservatives physically angry about how lenient it appears. But Norway has one of the lowest crime and recidivism rates in the world.

We even have a microcosm of it in Ireland - the Dóchas women's prison is a holiday camp compared to Mountjoy and the women who come out of it are 15% less likely to reoffend than men.

There is no question that reform and rehabilitation is the most effective type of prison system. Harsh systems create harder criminals.

The question is more about whether you care about reducing crime rates or just punishing criminals. Some people have a stone age mindset and believe in extracting revenge for the crimes of an offender, and nothing more.

And prisons are crime universities.

DickSwiveller

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why?

Because it is a fitting punishment. Personally I'd support bringing back the death penalty, but that's for another discussion...

Peregrinus

Graces7 wrote: »

And prisons are crime universities.

Which is pretty much Seamus's point, really.

Basically, if you brutalise people, they tend to become brutish. That's why we call it "brutalising". It would on one level be very gratifying if severly punishing criminals made them less likely to commit crimes, and we have a strong desire to believe that this is so but, actually, if you think dispassionately about it, you'll realise that the opposite is more often the case. So you have to choose between retribution/revenge on the one hand or rehabilitiation/protection of society on the other; you really can't have both.

LeinsterDub

Graces7 wrote: »

No; stop them driving. Permanently; a life sentence in its own way

So you're saying we should perhaps take a more nuanced approach rather than ""You take a life"? How interesting .

Grayson

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The point of prison is that a person is supposed to be deprived of the freedoms they enjoy outside. The problem in Ireland is that the useless yooman rights groups have got involoved, pandering to the needs of criminals and ignoring the law abiding public who would rather these people be deterred from committing crimes again once they are released. There is a huge re-offending rate because most of these scumbags don't mind doing a stretch in prison.

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. Taking the time to rehabilitate someone is worth it. You end up with a productive member of society.

Even on the occasions when it's not possible to rehabilitate it's worth studying and treating because it may help us prevent a further crime.

CrankyHaus

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. Taking the time to rehabilitate someone is worth it. You end up with a productive member of society.

Even on the occasions when it's not possible to rehabilitate it's worth studying and treating because it may help us prevent a further crime.

I don't think many seriously disagree with this in principal. It is more a question of what measures are acceptable to reform a prisoner while balancing the need to punish crime, deter crime and ensure public safety.

Clearly giving communications facilities to convicts is insane as it will have the taxpayer facilitating the orchestration of crime from within prison.

seamus

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. Taking the time to rehabilitate someone is worth it. You end up with a productive member of society.

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?

Gravelly

seamus wrote: »

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

Does anyone actually oppose rehabilitation though? I think most people, if not all, believe rehabilitation should be part of the legal process.

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?

Again, you seem to be arguing against a point nobody made. Permanent incarceration would be inhumane for most crimes.

seamus wrote: »

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

Now you're getting it.....

seamus wrote: »

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.

Exactly - though you finish up with the ridiculous "revenge fantasies" thing. Prison should be a combination of punishment and reform. You seem to think that criminals shouldn't suffer any punishment at all - therefore, to use your logic, why have any consequences at all for committing a crime? Why not reward criminals in the hope that will stop them reoffending?

seamus wrote: »

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?

Again, this argument against a point you only make yourself - locking all offenders up for life would be inhumane, just as not punishing offenders at all would be inhumane for their victims, and would almost certainly lead to anarchy.

Sore_toe

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Or maybe, 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

And we wonder why many people believe liberals are stupid

Grayson

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I don't think many seriously disagree with this in principal. It is more a question of what measures are acceptable to reform a prisoner while balancing the need to punish crime, deter crime and ensure public safety.

Clearly giving communications facilities to convicts is insane as it will have the taxpayer facilitating the orchestration of crime from within prison.

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 it doesn't matter how strong the punishment is. The death penalty hasn't lowered the murder rate in the countries that have it.

The reason we punish is because it feels wrong not to punish people.

I agree there may be occasions where the head of a criminal gang may continue their activities if they're given communication facilities. However most prisoners don't fall into that category. Most aren't criminal masterminds or the heads of organized gangs. It may be that it's easier to rehabilitate if they're able to get support from family and friends.

Wanderer78

Sore_toe wrote: »

And we wonder why many people believe liberals are stupid

misinformed is probably what id describe it as, and almost sociopathic like in dealing with these issues

Graces7

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So you're saying we should perhaps take a more nuanced approach rather than ""You take a life"? How interesting .

No just logical and appropriate . Killing is wrong so how can we kill killers?

Sore_toe

Wanderer78 wrote: »

And this solves the problem by?

Removing a public threat and also providing some sort of consolation for families of victims, would you have the neck to spout that sh1te at a parent or partner of a murder victim?

Wanderer78

Sore_toe wrote: »

Removing a public threat and also providing some sort of consolation for families of victims, would you have the neck to spout that sh1te at a parent or partner of a murder victim?

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

[Deleted User]

Try not paying your Garlic TV Banker TD Water Charge License and see what happens.

Sore_toe

Gatling wrote: »

By actually being punished .

We live in a society that thinks free hugs and a quite chat about what you did wrong is the way to go .

Like the erosion of anything involving any real authority is going so well across the country let's start with treating victims as the victim and those who carry out serious crimes get real punishment .

It's all well and grand talking about reforms until you or your family are the victims and then it's a different story

Indeed, I think people are finally coming to realise that the sh1te liberals have been spouting for fifty years about crime is complete b0ll0cks and has us where we are where a tonne of lazy entitled scumbags have no respect for anyone

Sore_toe

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.

We don't have to do sh1t bar keep them walled in and fed to a basic standard, they have five years to think on there sins

Rehabilitation implies that the offender was owed something and thus it wasn't there fault what happened

Signore Fancy Pants

This post has been deleted.

Gravelly

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 it doesn't matter how strong the punishment is. The death penalty hasn't lowered the murder rate in the countries that have it.

The reason we punish is because it feels wrong not to punish people.

I agree there may be occasions where the head of a criminal gang may continue their activities if they're given communication facilities. However most prisoners don't fall into that category. Most aren't criminal masterminds or the heads of organized gangs. It may be that it's easier to rehabilitate if they're able to get support from family and friends.

Because a society where there are no consequences for one's actions will quickly break down into anarchy. There is a huge amount of experimental and real-life examples of what happens when there is no punishment for stepping outside the bounds of normal behaviour.

Sore_toe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why?

Preservation of common decency and morality

Harika

Chewbacca wrote: »

Whats your solution?

What would you like to see happen to someone who has intentionally taken someones life and consequently ruined multiple others?

What do you achieve by locking them away until they die? So that they learn their lesson?
No doubt that there are people who go in and out, but harsher punishment is not deterring people from murdering people. The US has one of the strictest systems here and the incarnate in percentage more people than anyone else. Those costs you have to pay, while someone rehabilitated and outside has at least the chance to take care of himself again.
What has shown the least return rate is education and apprenticeships.

Gravelly

Harika wrote: »

What do you achieve by locking them away until they die? So that they learn their lesson?
No doubt that there are people who go in and out, but harsher punishment is not deterring people from murdering people. The US has one of the strictest systems here and the incarnate in percentage more people than anyone else. Those costs you have to pay, while someone rehabilitated and outside has at least the chance to take care of himself again.
What has shown the least return rate is education and apprenticeships.

So what is your solution - if I murder someone I get to go to college?

Grab All Association

I’ve said it before on here

50+ convictions Jimmy the scumbag types that are in and out of our courts almost weekly should be either given lobotomies or controlled with drugs.

The CIA would give people LSD and tell them they’d keep them in this state forever unless they talked. It may not have been effective intelligence wise but scared the shïte out of the detainee.

CrankyHaus

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 it doesn't matter how strong the punishment is. The death penalty hasn't lowered the murder rate in the countries that have it.

The reason we punish is because it feels wrong not to punish people.

I agree there may be occasions where the head of a criminal gang may continue their activities if they're given communication facilities. However most prisoners don't fall into that category. Most aren't criminal masterminds or the heads of organized gangs. It may be that it's easier to rehabilitate if they're able to get support from family and friends.

Punishment most certainly does work as a deterrent for behaviour society deems unacceptable. It is the reason you sleep safely in your bed at night.

Remove laws with punishments and see what happens, all historical precedents are of a descent into anarchy which in turn leads to harsh summary punishments to restore order. The exception is very small communities with sufficient cohesion that people find opposing the collective unthinkable.

People and societies punish crime to ensure their own safety, not out of some sadistic retributive urge as you seem to think.

DickSwiveller

Harika wrote: »

What do you achieve by locking them away until they die? So that they learn their lesson?
No doubt that there are people who go in and out, but harsher punishment is not deterring people from murdering people. The US has one of the strictest systems here and the incarnate in percentage more people than anyone else. Those costs you have to pay, while someone rehabilitated and outside has at least the chance to take care of himself again.
What has shown the least return rate is education and apprenticeships.

Let me give you an example. A few years ago, there was a local man in my area who murdered two innocent Polish men. This person was causing mayhem locally for years and all the decent people in the area are delighted that he is now serving two consecutive life sentences. He shouldn't be let out because he has shown that he is capable of killing two innocent people for no reason( Regardless of rehabilitation: Whatever that means. It sounds pretty Orwellian to me.)

Gravelly

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Let me give you an example. A few years ago, there was a local man in my area who murdered two innocent Polish men. This person was causing mayhem locally for years and all the decent people in the area are delighted that he is now serving two consecutive life sentences. He shouldn't be let out because he has shown that he is capable of killing two innocent people for no reason( Regardless of rehabilitation: Whatever that means. It sounds pretty Orwellian to me.)

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

Grayson

Sore_toe wrote: »

We don't have to do sh1t bar keep them walled in and fed to a basic standard, they have five years to think on there sins

Rehabilitation implies that the offender was owed something and thus it wasn't there fault what happened

That's not what rehabilitation means. it means that we do something to try and stop it occurring again rather than just hoping that it doesn't.

Gravelly wrote: »

Because a society where there are no consequences for one's actions will quickly break down into anarchy. There is a huge amount of experimental and real-life examples of what happens when there is no punishment for stepping outside the bounds of normal behaviour.

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.

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.

Harika

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Let me give you an example. A few years ago, there was a local man in my area who murdered two innocent Polish men. This person was causing mayhem locally for years and all the decent people in the area are delighted that he is now serving two consecutive life sentences. He shouldn't be let out because he has shown that he is capable of killing two innocent people for no reason( Regardless of rehabilitation: Whatever that means. It sounds pretty Orwellian to me.)

Yeah, there are cases where people are locked away forever, so the system works or?

rehabilitate. verb (tr) to help (a person who has acquired a disability or addiction or who has just been released from prison) to readapt to society or a new job, as by vocational guidance, retraining, or therapy. to restore to a former position or rank

Signore Fancy Pants

This post has been deleted.

Harika

Gravelly wrote: »

So what is your solution - if I murder someone I get to go to college?

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.