I'm just curious, as I've been thinking lately about prison. I'm not in prison or headed for prison, but I have found myself considering the nature of the prison system (particularly in America, given that it's kind of the only type of prison system with which I have even an inkling of experience).
Anyway, the point I'm getting to is that I'm still unsure precisely what the purpose of the prison system is. If it's for rehabilitation, it seems to be doing a pretty poor job given conditions inside prisons. On the other side, if it's just supposed to be a way to separate dangerous individuals from society, how can it really be effective if those dangerous individuals are released again? I'm mulling things over, but I'm at a stalemate with myself.
The prison system is just stupid. If its intended to rehabilitate criminals, then its miserable failure. If its intended to punish, harden and then release criminals, its a success.
I watch the shows Lock Up and Lockdown quite frequently and I agree that our system is a joke.
Its very interesting when they go to prisons in foreign countries. Talk about hardcore!!!!! Alot of these other countries dont take any crap when it comes to punishing criminals. Thats how we need to be.
Will it ever change here in the states???? Probably not. Too many bleeding hearts.
I was reading about how here in Florida......Death Row does not have AC in the summer or heat in the winter. Knowing how our Florida summers can get 100+ degrees......they are forced to sit and sweat inside thier cells. Alot of protestors have tried making a big stink calling the conditions inhumane. Well isnt what they did to get on Death Row inhumane?????? Let them suffer.
I'm given to understand the US prison system works quite well as a money making exercise.
A friend of mine was unfortunate enough to find himself in a Thai prison last year, after working without a visa there, that didn't sound like a fun place. 15 people to a 20ft square room, with a hole in the floor as a toilet, and fish heads for your meals.
That's a funny thing to say TaskMaster99, I would definitely have thought the US system to be hardcore, compared to what we have here in the UK and Europe!
I think you are right though that there needs to be a serious examination of what the system is actually meant to achieve. Keeping those dangerous to society in some form or another away from law abiding citizens must be the priority, but also that there can be some form of rehabilitation. While rehabilitation is often argued about, specifically in terms of whether it is possible or not in most cases, I think what is unarguable is that the opposite often takes place and some prisons ultimately 'train' the people inside to be even more unlikely to fit into society if they are released, or are otherwise further twisted and damaged by their incarceration. Take for example the guy who went in for 3 car break-ins (under the '3 strikes and you are out' ruling), got repeatedly raped in prison and then ended up raping and killing a girl upon his release. While no doubt he deserved punishment for the criminal damage and theft, the net result of his punishment you could view as a failure.
As for the death penalty, well that is a whole other, and particularly nasty can of worms. Personally I think most of the police in this country have to be told that they can breath through their nose, so the overall possibility of a mistake being made and the wrong person being convicted are far too high. Another criticism is that executions can be politically motivated, with pressure exerted to have someone executed when they should otherwise not have been. Given the choice, I would rather see a hundred people incarcerated indefinitely rather than a single innocent person be put to death. The annals of convicted criminals being executed have far too many "woops, we didn't know that at the time" comments.
And personally, regarding something being 'humane' (as much as it is possible when taking someone's life against their will), I wish people would move away from the 'eye for an eye' savagery as much as possible. The story recently about the guy who was lead to the execution chamber a dozen times or so, only for it to be cancelled at the last moment each time, I think is seriously messed up. By the end, when they did finally execute him, his mind was gone already. Although by all accounts he was a simpleton, so the chances are he probably didn't have a full conception of what was going on anyway.
We should categorise prisoners according to not only their risk and type of sentence but also based on whether they can be rehabilitated.
Thoase who can should be kept in a greater degree of isolation not less, contact with fellow prisoners hardens prisoners, they become 'universities of crime' and networking centres. Short term unlikely to re-offend prisoners should be seperated from each other.
This helps because the bordom and lack of contact will tell the inmate, dont come back.
For habitual criminals the roles are opposite, let them congregate if they wish and make prison more comfortable for long sentence prisoners. The emphasis is now on efficient containment alone.
@Pacific: In essence, it's the first point you make (regarding the training of criminals to be even less capable of assimilating into society and more effective as criminals) that causes the greatest concern for me.
The entire model of the prison system (i.e. confine a huge mass of criminals into a small area with only a comparative handful of authority figures compared to inmates) seems keyed to further damaging the minds and overall behavior of criminals confined in the prison. For all the apparent control of maintained over criminals in such confines, it is in the fine details (cell-to-cell communication, rapes, contraband, etc.) that control is lost, allowing criminal networks to continue communicating in close proximity and allowing for violence to be perpetrated toward inmates from other inmates.
This of course brings up the problem of what to do with criminals if the death penalty is too barbaric, prisons are actually more of a problem than a remedy, and eye-for-an-eye style justice is foolish (another point in which I'm inclined to agree with you).
Cameron Todd Willingham, An innocent man put to death despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Why? Because his kids died and there was faulty evidence that was taken as dogma from the arson inspecter because he had experiance.
Innocent people do die in the death penalty. The appeals are supposed to make it possible that doesnt happen. Why? because people assume that if the are on death row they already must be guilty.
The justice system isn't perfect, but it at least can fix its mistakes. There have been plenty of times when innocent people were put into jail, but then we figured it out and let 'em out. Especially with the advanced in forensics and what not. But if you kill people, you can't fix that.
If a person is 100% proven to be guilty and 100% proven to be unrehabilitate-able then its okay to execute them. But to get the 100%, there need to be lots of appeals and diagnostics gak.
I actually figured out the best way to survive prison unmolested (even though I read a while ago from a reputable source, forgotten which one after a decade, that most prison rape stories are made up)-when you get there, pull down your pants, gak in your hand, smear it on the wall (and maybe on your clothes). And don't forget to yell a lot. Nobody wants to get crazy all over their d***. I hear it's contagious. Biting off the end of your finger and spitting it into a guy's face will probably also work, just a lot more painfully. Also, don't wipe after using the bathroom-you might not be able to get crazy all over you, but you can certainly get poo on you.
Just in case you ever went to jail, you can appreciate my survival tips. I actually asked a friend of mine who is a cop about this theory, he looked at me, blinked a couple times, took a step back and told me that yes, it would definitely work-nobody would go near you. I haven't heard from him since.
I will more than likely get bashed for this....but I am all for "Eye for an Eye" justice. Maybe then people will learn from thier mistakes. One example is the treatment of child molestors. They are put in protective custody for thier own safety. Wrong!!!! Throw them in the general population and let the others do what needs to be done. You cant rehabilitate "Screwed up in the head".
As for the firing squad..........I vote yes. Bring it back.
An idea I've entertained is putting habitual violent types,rapists, child molestors, etc. on a refitted oil tanker. Give each man a knife and a five dollar bill, set sail for fun and adventure for six months without anyone being locked up and see what the rate of recidivism would be.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That would also include all the crack they can handle, with the knowledge it can't leave the ship.
Prison should be for more minor offences, major offences shouldnt get to live on at all if proven guilty without doubt... they should just be turned into human fire wood and removed form this world... that should solve over crowding and worries over re-releasing them back into the world.
The minor offenders if not presistantly offending could be set free after a non luxury prison stay. but if they repeat offend they could get upgraded to major
I think prison/crime should work on a points system, where each crime is worth a certain number of points. You accumulate a certain number of points you get a certain punishment, ranging from a caution, fine, prison, etc.
Maybe two tracks, one for minor things like littering, traffic violations etc (with the possibility of a fixed number of these points going towards a major point), and one for 'major' crimes. With points being cumulative and never being removed (unless you go back and prove innocence).
Everyone loves it when points mean prizes!
Reform of prison itself? Seperate out the small fry from the hard core, cut down luxuries, solitary cells (I like the ones which can only be accessed from above with fine mesh and bars as they help stop stuff being passed between cells ) and rehabilitation for those who might benefit from it.
Taskmaster99 wrote:I will more than likely get bashed for this....but I am all for "Eye for an Eye" justice. Maybe then people will learn from thier mistakes. One example is the treatment of child molestors. They are put in protective custody for thier own safety. Wrong!!!! Throw them in the general population and let the others do what needs to be done. You cant rehabilitate "Screwed up in the head".
As for the firing squad..........I vote yes. Bring it back.
+1
Why the hell should my tax dollars go towards keeping alive some worthless piece of crap who enjoyed savagely raping a child repeatedly, before bashing her head in with a hammer?
While I don't condone throwing the kiddie-killers/rapers into the general pop as it makes us no better than the vermin, a bullet to the brain is what they truely deserve. (however, I'm personally all for first castrating them while keeping them fully conscious, then sending them to death row.)
But no, instead the guy gets 'life with no chance of parole for 22 years'... Yep, that's "justice" for sure. The sick will be able to apply for parole before he's 55 and will likely tell some BS sob story to a bunch of moronic bleeding hearts so that he can go free and then hunt & kill another poor innocent child.
Then there's the complete crazies, like the psycho who went off his meds and beheaded some innocent guy on a bus because the voices in his head told him the poor guy was an alien trying to kill him. Lock the morons up and throw away the key, because you can never be 100% certain these idiots will stay on their fething meds!
The modern prison system seems more about giving rights to the criminals than protecting the rest of us from them.
I find it funny that the most "Christian" country in the world is so old testament in it's thinking. There is a reason that America is pretty much the only developed country to use the death penalty, because it's barbaric.
You give me a legal system that is 100% guaranteed to never ever make a single mistake and put the wrong individual to death and I will agree to the death penalty.
dæl wrote:I find it funny that the most "Christian" country in the world is so old testament in it's thinking. There is a reason that America is pretty much the only developed country to use the death penalty, because it's barbaric.
dæl wrote:I find it funny that the most "Christian" country in the world is so old testament in it's thinking. There is a reason that America is pretty much the only developed country to use the death penalty, because it's barbaric.
I'm pretty sure insulting nationalities is against the rules. But what do I know, I'm simply a barbaric American.
If only we had a national Church so we could have their leader around to approve our laws.
@AustonT If I were a troll, I wouldn't be saying things I believe in, America is pretty much the only developed country to use the death penalty, Japan still has it, but barely uses it, look at a list of criminals executed by number. It goes China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, USA. That isn't good company to keep. Killing people is wrong believe it or not, regardless of whether it is state sanctioned.
dæl wrote:I find it funny that the most "Christian" country in the world is so old testament in it's thinking. There is a reason that America is pretty much the only developed country to use the death penalty, because it's barbaric.
Person from country with state Christian religion refers to US as "most Christian nation"
dæl wrote:I find it funny that the most "Christian" country in the world is so old testament in it's thinking. There is a reason that America is pretty much the only developed country to use the death penalty, because it's barbaric.
Person from country with state Christian religion refers to US as "most Christian nation"
Refers to contradictory text
Calls names
/troll says troll things.
The death penalty IS barbaric.
American politicians must appease the massive number of Christians to have any type of mandate.
Old Testament = Eye for an eye, New Testament = turn the other cheek.
So who did I call names? And where did I contradict myself?
dæl wrote:I find it funny that the most "Christian" country in the world is so old testament in it's thinking. There is a reason that America is pretty much the only developed country to use the death penalty, because it's barbaric.
You must be referring to some mythical land. There is no country named "America." Evidently your educational system could use a little revamping, or you just drooled on your desk. Death penalty for you!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:Killing people is wrong believe it or not, regardless of whether it is state sanctioned.
Genghis Khan is rolling over in his grave. Wo settle down now Genghis. He didn't mean it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:
AustonT wrote:
dæl wrote:I find it funny that the most "Christian" country in the world is so old testament in it's thinking. There is a reason that America is pretty much the only developed country to use the death penalty, because it's barbaric.
Person from country with state Christian religion refers to US as "most Christian nation"
Refers to contradictory text
Calls names
/troll says troll things.
The death penalty IS barbaric.
American politicians must appease the massive number of Christians to have any type of mandate.
Old Testament = Eye for an eye, New Testament = turn the other cheek.
So who did I call names? And where did I contradict myself?
Maybe its because your tiny but oh so cute when it gets angry little island of a country has a state religion and the USA doesn't?
You must be referring to some mythical land. There is no country named "America." Evidently your educational system could use a little revamping, or you just drooled on your desk. Death penalty for you!
Genghis Khan is rolling over in his grave. Wo settle down now Genghis. He didn't mean it.
Maybe its because your tiny but oh so cute when it gets angry little island of a country has a state religion and the USA doesn't?
You're right, I meant the United States of America (Sorry Canada).
If you can tell me where his grave he's turning in is located I will go and apologise.
We created our State religion, these days we don't really care, hence there is no debate about abortion, and we have Bishops sat in the House of Lords, we also have Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and other assorted religions. At least until the reforms. Our election campaigns aren't focused on trying not to annoy the religious.
Back OT, Prison needs to sort out what it wants to achieve, if it wants to rehabilitate and reintegrate criminals into society, its failing. If it wants to punish to an equal degree as the crime, it's failing. If it wants to protect society, it works temporarily, then releases a more dangerous individual into the populous. If it wants to act as a deterrent, the only thing people seem worried about are the affections of their fellow prisoners, hell, this threat of rape is used by police. It probably succeeds for those who have never been, but once someone knows how to survive there it once again fails.
State religion or not, religion certainly has more political weight in America than it does in most other countries.
It's also pretty much true that the rest of the developed world has decided that the death penalty is just a wee bit on the backwards side of things.
EDIT: I think it might be a touch much to imply one causes the other exactly, but they are both true in an objectively measurable sense.
Define developed world. China's fine with it and their GDP stomps and their population is more than the North America and Europe's combined you western imperialist yankee dog you. Plus they are going to the Moon. One of these days Alice er Mei, right to the moon!
dæl wrote:
The death penalty IS barbaric.
American politicians must appease the massive number of Christians to have any type of mandate.
Old Testament = Eye for an eye, New Testament = turn the other cheek.
So who did I call names? And where did I contradict myself?
Personally, I think it's far more barbaric and outright stupid to release convicted child rapists & murders back into an otherwise peaceful & high functioning community.
I don't advocate the death penalty as a catch-all punishment for every single violent offense in the book. But certain otherwise useless wipes like Bernardo & Rafferty don't deserve to continue breathing, let alone in a cushy isoloated cell with TV and top-notch healthcare paid for on the backs of hard-working and law abiding citizens.
Yes, killing them won't bring back the poor little girls they killed, but it gives closure to their families, and most importantly, it ensures they will never, ever get a chance to take away another innocent family's little girl!
Frazzled wrote:
Define developed world. China's fine with it and their GDP stomps and their population is more than the North America and Europe's combined you western imperialist yankee dog you. Plus they are going to the Moon. One of these days Alice er Mei, right to the moon!
Often the first criteria is GDP per capita, you also have HDI, quality of life, and I think the World Bank has some criteria too, based on income.
Kofi Annan wrote:A developed country is one that allows all its citizens to enjoy a free and healthy life in a safe environment
LoneLictor wrote:I have a question. Why would you favor punishment as opposed to rehabilitation? I'm actually curious about this.
I happen to think violent felons and serial minor offenders are beyond rehabilitation. Outside those two groups: rehabilitation. I think the fact that over 2 million Americans are in prison is abysmal in a "free" nation.
The only reason I don't support the death penalty for heinous crimes is because of crimes where the wrong person is accused. See the West Memphis Three case: three boys accused of rape and murder, one sentenced to death row, one life in prison, the third had 50 years. Overwhelming evidence supported the boys' innocence, the confession was forced with 30 hrs of no food or water from a mentally handicapped person (and he confessed to the wrong murder weapons), and the boys all had alibis. Yet they were thrown in jail anyway. 20 years later, after massive support from many members of the entertainment industry (including Johnny Depp, Alkaline Trio and Jack Black) and their families' support, they finally walk free. There was evidence proving the father of one of the boys committed the crime, yet he went free for years. If death row was commonplace, one or all of these guys would have died for a crime he/they didn't commit.
However, that said, if there was a way to be 100% certain, I'd support the death penalty, if the crime is deserving. I don't wanna pay taxes to keep Joe Somebody alive in prison for 45 years because he raped a 4 year old child and then force-fed her to his dogs (just got done watching L&O:SVU, sorry for the graphic example). A guy like that deserves death row after having his genitals, fingers, and toes cut off, then have his eyeballs plucked out and his tongue chopped off.
If any part of that doesn't make sense, I'm still exhausted from work-I can try to clean it up and make it more sensible later.
edit-For the autobiography of the boy/man on death row in the WMT case, read "Almost Home" by Damien Echols. I haven't read anything that tragic before that wasn't fiction-but it's a real story of survival. If you can get through it without crying, laughing and hating ignorant people who disapprove of those who are different, I think you may need therapy.
A lot of peoples problems with life imprisonment is the cost, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the prison system in the US is a profit making entity.
I think there have been studies that show that livelong imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty due to the extra security required as well as the added cost of the many appeals.
d-usa wrote:I think there have been studies that show that livelong imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty due to the extra security required as well as the added cost of the many appeals.
To be fair, if I fully supported the death penalty I would say there would be no cost to throwing the convicted over a cliff onto a pile of rocks near shark infested waters.
Amaya wrote:I don't see anything inherently wrong with the death penalty in certain cases. Its a moral issue and morality is all relative.
What else are you going to do with serial killers, mass murderers, repeat sex offenders (rapists/child molesters), and other violent criminals?
I think the biggest objection to the death penalty isn't the morality of killing another human being, but the possibility of killing an innocent (which has happened plenty of times before). If new evidence comes up after 10 years in a prison sentence that person can be released, but if you kill them and they are proven innocent 10 years later it's not going to do them any good.
Also Fraz, Genghis Khan was a fairly unpleasant fellow, should we really be looking to him as a moral agent?
The prison system is a conspiracy. They use criminals to do dirt cheap labor and leave them entirely incapable of providing for themselves when they're released. Quite despicable.
US has 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world's people. Oh, and prison workers get 25 cents an hour. and if they don't like it they get isolation. It has been referred to, quite significantly given the ethnic make up of the prison population, as slave labour.
"no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens."
This is what happens when you base policy of really serious matters on sports rules. Three strikes and you're out? why not 10 second stop-go penalty? (maybe like a sin-bin) Or let first service? (first offence? off you go) or free kick? (you robbed this person they get a free kick, into your gonads)
dæl wrote:US has 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world's people. Oh, and prison workers get 25 cents an hour. and if they don't like it they get isolation. It has been referred to, quite significantly given the ethnic make up of the prison population, as slave labour.
"no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens."
I'd like to see a source, that number beggars belief.
This is what happens when you base policy of really serious matters on sports rules. Three strikes and you're out? why not 10 second stop-go penalty? (maybe like a sin-bin) Or let first service? (first offence? off you go) or free kick? (you robbed this person they get a free kick, into your gonads)
This is traditionally how the justice system worked, with crime being seen as more of an offence against the victim than an offence against the state. The shift occurred during the medieval period for a number of reasons, but primarily because authorities caught on to the profits that could be made through fines.
dæl wrote:US has 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world's people. Oh, and prison workers get 25 cents an hour. and if they don't like it they get isolation. It has been referred to, quite significantly given the ethnic make up of the prison population, as slave labour.
"no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens."
I'd like to see a source, that number beggars belief.
No idea about the 25% claim, but here is one source for raw numbers:
Amaya wrote:I don't see anything inherently wrong with the death penalty in certain cases. Its a moral issue and morality is all relative.
What else are you going to do with serial killers, mass murderers, repeat sex offenders (rapists/child molesters), and other violent criminals?
I think the biggest objection to the death penalty isn't the morality of killing another human being, but the possibility of killing an innocent (which has happened plenty of times before). If new evidence comes up after 10 years in a prison sentence that person can be released, but if you kill them and they are proven innocent 10 years later it's not going to do them any good.
That is the biggest problem, but there are cases where the evidence is irrefutable and the fether actually admits it.
Samus_aran115 wrote:The prison system is a conspiracy. They use criminals to do dirt cheap labor and leave them entirely incapable of providing for themselves when they're released. Quite despicable.
I wish they actually used prisoners for cheap labor. Second part is partially accurate.
dæl wrote:US has 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world's people. Oh, and prison workers get 25 cents an hour. and if they don't like it they get isolation. It has been referred to, quite significantly given the ethnic make up of the prison population, as slave labour.
"no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens."
This is what happens when you base policy of really serious matters on sports rules. Three strikes and you're out? why not 10 second stop-go penalty? (maybe like a sin-bin) Or let first service? (first offence? off you go) or free kick? (you robbed this person they get a free kick, into your gonads)
One of the primary problems is that the judicial system is inherently racist still. Black guy with weed gets charged with intent to sell. White guy gets charged with possession.
Considering that the ghetto has gotten markedly worse since the 60s, I'm convinced that left wing politicians are either idiots when it comes to dealing with that problem or actually want to keep minorities down.
The point about prisoners not being able to provide for themselves while out is a good one. Im not talking murders rapists and the like here but if someone gets arrested for robbery etc and cannot find any way to make a living once they are out the chances of them re offending are very high.
All I know is "I'm to pretty to go to prison" If given the choice of going quitely (then getting my teath smashed in and repetedly butt r****d) or running, I'd run, every time.
It's a system that while is broken it's the best thing we have that works. We can't mind wipe folks yet (ie; Babalyon 5's death of personality) and lobotomising them isn't an option we'll just have to keep locking them up. The death penalty is barbaric, but and its a big but, that said there are times that the only punishment that is fitting to the crime is death (war crimes, mass murder and the like).
Personaly I think there should be a prison at the south pole, lets face it you can't escape from there on foot with out a whole host of survival gear and even then it wouldn't be fesible for your normal prisoner to know such ways of surviving in such a harsh place. There you could just dump all of the rufuge of this planet and let them sort out the kiddie fiddlers and other deviants. Or enrole them into the armed forces Sort of like this;
dæl wrote:US has 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world's people. Oh, and prison workers get 25 cents an hour. and if they don't like it they get isolation. It has been referred to, quite significantly given the ethnic make up of the prison population, as slave labour.
"no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens."
This is what happens when you base policy of really serious matters on sports rules. Three strikes and you're out? why not 10 second stop-go penalty? (maybe like a sin-bin) Or let first service? (first offence? off you go) or free kick? (you robbed this person they get a free kick, into your gonads)
Whats so awesome is how you ignored the gulags, killing fields, and mass concentration camp that is the entire nation of North Korea.
dæl wrote:US has 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world's people. Oh, and prison workers get 25 cents an hour. and if they don't like it they get isolation. It has been referred to, quite significantly given the ethnic make up of the prison population, as slave labour.
"no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens."
This is what happens when you base policy of really serious matters on sports rules. Three strikes and you're out? why not 10 second stop-go penalty? (maybe like a sin-bin) Or let first service? (first offence? off you go) or free kick? (you robbed this person they get a free kick, into your gonads)
Whats so awesome is how you ignored the gulags, killing fields, and mass concentration camp that is the entire nation of North Korea.
I think that might count as a prison. And the fact that the US is not far behind them is frankly scary. I had thought the US prison population was closer to 400 to every 100,100. To be almost double that? And 4 times higher than most other Western countries?
Someone in prison also can't reoffend. Logic fail.
Which is why every crime needs to be for Life imprisonment minimum...for everything higher than petty theft (though some mechanism of stopping reoffending for petty theft is required)
Someone in prison also can't reoffend. Logic fail.
Which is why every crime needs to be for Life imprisonment minimum...for everything higher than petty theft (though some mechanism of stopping reoffending for petty theft is required)
You know, we could chop peoples hands off for theft, then they can't steal until they get really good with their feet.
@Joey How are referenda undemocratic? In comparison to a fundamentally two party system, decided on first past the post, with a second unelected chamber? In fact forget the comparison, how are referenda undemocratic?
Someone in prison also can't reoffend. Logic fail.
Which is why every crime needs to be for Life imprisonment minimum...for everything higher than petty theft (though some mechanism of stopping reoffending for petty theft is required)
You know, we could chop peoples hands off for theft, then they can't steal until they get really good with their feet.
@Joey How are referenda undemocratic? In comparison to a fundamentally two party system, decided on first past the post, with a second unelected chamber? In fact forget the comparison, how are referenda undemocratic?
I wouldn't mind that...but the hippy part of the country (who are to blame for the monstrous level of crime in the UK) wouldn't like it. Something else would be required.
Someone in prison also can't reoffend. Logic fail.
Which is why every crime needs to be for Life imprisonment minimum...for everything higher than petty theft (though some mechanism of stopping reoffending for petty theft is required)
You know, we could chop peoples hands off for theft, then they can't steal until they get really good with their feet.
@Joey How are referenda undemocratic? In comparison to a fundamentally two party system, decided on first past the post, with a second unelected chamber? In fact forget the comparison, how are referenda undemocratic?
Because in a democracy, the electorate (whoever that might be) vote for representatives. Those representatives then make, regulate and scrutinise laws.
The only political ideology in which the political opinions of the majority of the populace are enforced is populism, which since Greek times has always been accompanied by a Tyrant.
Democracies protect minorities by rule of law, populists do not.
Mr Hyena wrote:
Someone in prison also can't reoffend. Logic fail.
Which is why every crime needs to be for Life imprisonment minimum...for everything higher than petty theft (though some mechanism of stopping reoffending for petty theft is required)
It'd work. We wouldn't get cases of gang rape on women where the rapers get incredibly short (unjustly short for the crime) sentences (given how appeals work) like is currently the case.
And as said, its cheaper than capital punishment yet still prevents re-offending which is a blight on the UK.
It'd work. We wouldn't get cases of gang rape on women where the rapers get incredibly short (unjustly short for the crime) sentences (given how appeals work) like is currently the case.
And as said, its cheaper than capital punishment yet still prevents re-offending which is a blight on the UK.
Some people get too leniant sentances, so everyone should get life all the time.
Right-wing logic
Mr Hyena wrote:
I wouldn't mind that...but the hippy part of the country (who are to blame for the monstrous level of crime in the UK) wouldn't like it. Something else would be required.
So rather than the vicious, reactionary gak that comes from the daily mail and the BNP and their ilk advocating hate and intolerance (strangely, attacks and abuse on the disabled have risen year on year since the right wing press started calling them scroungers, because they aren't quite disabled enough for their liking), or the criminals who, you know, actually commit crimes, the rise in crime is down to habitually non violent, inclusive people whose worst infraction is probably smoking a bit of weed, or maybe squatting a house.
So would you like to explain how "hippies" are causing this crime epidemic?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
Because in a democracy, the electorate (whoever that might be) vote for representatives. Those representatives then make, regulate and scrutinise laws.
The only political ideology in which the political opinions of the majority of the populace are enforced is populism, which since Greek times has always been accompanied by a Tyrant.
Democracies protect minorities by rule of law, populists do not.
Brilliant point, I do feel that with sufficient education and moral and ethical schooling we could maybe make the right choices. But we are a long way from that.
Well my opinion, and it is only that an opinion, is that Life imprisonment is a waste of resources whilst the death penalty is a waste of life because of the problem with the inocent getting murdered . So we are screwed either way.
My personal solution is very black and white and would not be liked by most of you. I think that prison should be a punishment and as such the term should be relative to the crime but you should have a bed and a toilet and thats it. Basic meals only. 1 hour excersise each day. And that's it. No TV, Internet, Lottery, Telephones or anything else. Re-ofennders should get the exact same treatment. And if you happen to be caught a 3rd time for the same or similar crime then death because the puishment obviously didn't work.
The innocent would then not get the death penalty by accident and we wouldn't have to deal with stupid perople that thunk the rules don't apply to them.
Now I'll stand back and wait for people to tell me how wrong this is.
Toast36 wrote:Well my opinion, and it is only that an opinion, is that Life imprisonment is a waste of resources whilst the death penalty is a waste of life because of the problem with the inocent getting murdered . So we are screwed either way.
My personal solution is very black and white and would not be liked by most of you. I think that prison should be a punishment and as such the term should be relative to the crime but you should have a bed and a toilet and thats it. Basic meals only. 1 hour excersise each day. And that's it. No TV, Internet, Lottery, Telephones or anything else. Re-ofennders should get the exact same treatment. And if you happen to be caught a 3rd time for the same or similar crime then death because the puishment obviously didn't work.
The innocent would then not get the death penalty by accident and we wouldn't have to deal with stupid perople that thunk the rules don't apply to them.
Now I'll stand back and wait for people to tell me how wrong this is.
Right behind you until the killing bit, prison should be difficult, but say a homeless person stole some fruit rather than starve, then again, then again,does that qualify as him being put to death?
dæl wrote:
Right behind you until the killing bit, prison should be difficult, but say a homeless person stole some fruit rather than starve, then again, then again,does that qualify as him being put to death?
but say a homeless person stole some fruit rather than starve, then again, then again,does that qualify as him being put to death?
Its still a crime. There are a variety of homeless helping services. Theft is not the answer. Otherwise its discrimination against the majority.
Asked and answered, there should be no reason to commit a crime in this day in age, there are allways alternatives. You just need to ask for the help. And don't get me wrong I think that after a stint in prison help should be available but if after going throught the system twice you decide to do it again if nothing else Darwinism suggests that you should be removed from the gene pool for shear stupidity.
So would you like to explain how "hippies" are causing this crime epidemic?
By removing the concept of discipline. Any attempt at increasing discipline, regardless of what it entails, is always shot down.
Look how damn hard it is to get an obviously troublesome kid removed from a school.
Some people get too leniant sentances, so everyone should get life all the time.
Right-wing logic
Its not some. Its the majority. But thats mainly due to 'good behaviour' idiocy.
We can't even get people to serve full sentences. How are we going to improve crime without that?
You don't "improve crime" by dealing with the aftermath, you deal with the cause. If what you believed about discipline and harsh sentencing was true then China would have zero crime, it doesn't. If you look at incarcerations and crime they are more prevalent in countries with greater inequality. This is why Denmark, Norway, Japan etc have such low crime rates and so few people in prison. The US has 737 prisoners per 100,000, the UK 139 per 100,000. Now Denmark and Norway have 59 per 100,000, Japan 55. You raise the idea of expelling children, I'm pretty sure hippies didn't make the legislation surrounding that, but what do you hope to achieve by palming off a child that probably has quite serious issues in regards to trust of the outside world. You shouldn't be worried about exclusion, you should be trying for inclusion. Give people a stake in society and they have something to lose.
"If the young are not initiated into the village they will burn it down to feel it's warmth"
You raise the idea of expelling children, I'm pretty sure hippies didn't make the legislation surrounding that, but what do you hope to achieve by palming off a child that probably has quite serious issues in regards to trust of the outside world. You shouldn't be worried about exclusion, you should be trying for inclusion.
And how do we make this up to the good kids who have their lesson disrupted? Hmm? That is what I am concerned about - lack of discipline is contagious and not only that, but in a classroom environment has the effect of ruining other people's educations.
Growing up in a inner city school as an experience confirms this.
You don't "improve crime" by dealing with the aftermath, you deal with the cause.
That is a long term goal. Something needs to be done in the short term otherwise it is at the expense of the victims (who are already treated awfully in this country)
You raise the idea of expelling children, I'm pretty sure hippies didn't make the legislation surrounding that, but what do you hope to achieve by palming off a child that probably has quite serious issues in regards to trust of the outside world. You shouldn't be worried about exclusion, you should be trying for inclusion.
And how do we make this up to the good kids who have their lesson disrupted? Hmm?
So your answer is to sent the child to another set of good kids then. Thats what expulsion is, palming off a problem somewhere else, its like NIMBYisn.
You raise the idea of expelling children, I'm pretty sure hippies didn't make the legislation surrounding that, but what do you hope to achieve by palming off a child that probably has quite serious issues in regards to trust of the outside world. You shouldn't be worried about exclusion, you should be trying for inclusion.
And how do we make this up to the good kids who have their lesson disrupted? Hmm?
So your answer is to sent the child to another set of good kids then. Thats what expulsion is, palming off a problem somewhere else, its like NIMBYisn.
I'm all for specialised schools/classrooms specifically for problem children, where lesson focus is on good integration.
Which wouldn't require expulsion, merely temporary segregation. Expulsion and good integration are mutually exclusive.
A year minimum in these classes would probably be required to ensure no re-offending.
Expulsion would be required if setting up these classes takes money away from good, well-behaved kids as this still impacts on their quality of education.
Which wouldn't require expulsion, merely temporary segregation. Expulsion and good integration are mutually exclusive.
A year minimum in these classes would probably be required to ensure no re-offending.
Expulsion would be required if setting up these classes takes money away from good, well-behaved kids as this still impacts on their quality of education.
Because arbitrary time scales are a perfect fit for complex situations and developing characters.
And you expel them where exactly?
Bored, so back OT, does anyone favour rehabilitation which is in halfway houses? Thus engaging with society but with strict measures, now obviously this could not apply to those who are dangerous, but if the prison system creates worse criminals surely it'd be better to keep people away where possible.
But they'd get better summers. Actually i'll rephrase, they'll get summers.
Mr Hyena wrote:Youth Offender Institutes.
So you want to put the young in pseudo prisons, and the adults to get life imprisonment for everything above theft, except where you kill them. What a happy world it must be in your head.
So you want to put the young in pseudo prisons, and the adults to get life imprisonment for everything above theft, except where you kill them. What a happy world it must be in your head.
Justice implies a fairness. Life imprisonment for minor offences is not only logistically ridiculous but absolutely unfair, regardless of ethics or morals. I take it you have never broken a single law, statute or by-law in your life then? Because I, like pretty much everyone else, have.
dæl wrote:Justice implies a fairness. Life imprisonment for minor offences is not only logistically ridiculous but absolutely unfair, regardless of ethics or morals. I take it you have never broken a single law, statute or by-law in your life then? Because I, like pretty much everyone else, have.
No. Justice implies justice, or if you want ot be real Just Us.
You make a personal valuation when you say its unfair. Unfair itself implies equal or apportioned properly. If all criminal offenses resulted in the detah penalty then it would be absolutely equal.
dæl wrote:Justice implies a fairness. Life imprisonment for minor offences is not only logistically ridiculous but absolutely unfair, regardless of ethics or morals. I take it you have never broken a single law, statute or by-law in your life then? Because I, like pretty much everyone else, have.
No. Justice implies justice, or if you want ot be real Just Us.
You make a personal valuation when you say its unfair. Unfair itself implies equal or apportioned properly. If all criminal offenses resulted in the detah penalty then it would be absolutely equal.
Not in the slightest, a just response is equal or as near as can be to the first action. 2 eyes,2 legs, 2arms, and a scalp for an eye is not just.
So you want to put the young in pseudo prisons, and the adults to get life imprisonment for everything above theft, except where you kill them. What a happy world it must be in your head.
dæl wrote:Justice implies a fairness. Life imprisonment for minor offences is not only logistically ridiculous but absolutely unfair, regardless of ethics or morals. I take it you have never broken a single law, statute or by-law in your life then? Because I, like pretty much everyone else, have.
No. Justice implies justice, or if you want ot be real Just Us.
You make a personal valuation when you say its unfair. Unfair itself implies equal or apportioned properly. If all criminal offenses resulted in the detah penalty then it would be absolutely equal.
Not in the slightest, a just response is equal or as near as can be to the first action. 2 eyes,2 legs, 2arms, and a scalp for an eye is not just.
Why? I can argue a just response is a good wedgie if I am just going to make statements as absolutes. You've put forth no support other than you may be the reincarnation of Hammurabi.
Right, but again, 9 times out of 10 with the current system, the victim is always the one who is punished. Fairness is non-existent. If no one is willing to increase the severity (regardless of how much) then fairness can never exist.
Right, but again, 9 times out of 10 with the current system, the victim is always the one who is punished.
That has literally never happened.
Were you not aware that many newspapers outright make up the stories that they print? Because they do.
Here's an example:
Someone's house gets broken into to, they bash the burgler's face in and call the police. The police come round, arrest the burgler, but because he's been injured, they have to talk to the homeowner too, to find out what happened. Since it's obvious that the homeowner was acting in self defence, they release him without charge, and the burgler is prosecuted. Here's what happens when it reaches the press:
"HOMEOWNER ARRESTED FOR TACKLING BURGLER"
Seriously, what do they teach kids these days? Oh yeah, feth all
Right, but again, 9 times out of 10 with the current system, the victim is always the one who is punished.
That has literally never happened.
Were you not aware that many newspapers outright make up the stories that they print? Because they do.
Here's an example:
Someone's house gets broken into to, they bash the burgler's face in and call the police. The police come round, arrest the burgler, but because he's been injured, they have to talk to the homeowner too, to find out what happened. Since it's obvious that the homeowner was acting in self defence, they release him without charge, and the burgler is prosecuted. Here's what happens when it reaches the press:
"HOMEOWNER ARRESTED FOR TACKLING BURGLER"
Seriously, what do they teach kids these days? Oh yeah, feth all
And about the short sentences many criminals are given for murder and rape? How exactly can that be justified when they get out usually half-way. That is punishment of the victim - lack of justice.
Mr Hyena wrote:
And about the short sentences many criminals are given for murder and rape? How exactly can that be justified when they get out usually half-way. That is punishment of the victim - lack of justice.
Name a single case of a short sentence for murder. It carries a life sentence at the least.
Mr Hyena wrote:
And about the short sentences many criminals are given for murder and rape? How exactly can that be justified when they get out usually half-way. That is punishment of the victim - lack of justice.
Name a single case of a short sentence for murder. It carries a life sentence at the least.
Welcome to the world's nicest prison By John D. Sutter, CNN
updated 10:20 AM EDT, Thu May 24, 2012
Bastoy, Norway (CNN) -- Jan Petter Vala, who is serving a prison sentence for murder, has hands the size of dinner plates and shoulders like those of an ox. In an alcoholic rage, he used his brutish strength to strangle his girlfriend to death a few years ago.
On a recent Thursday, however, at this summer-camp-like island prison in southern Norway, where convicts hold keys to their rooms and there are no armed guards or fences, Vala used those same enormous hands to help bring life into the world.
The 42-year-old murderer stood watch while an oversize cow gave birth to a wobbly, long-legged, brown-and-white calf. He cried as the baby was born, he said, and wiped slime off of the newborn's face so she could gulp her first breath.
Afterward, Vala called his own mother to share the good news.
"I told my family that I'm going to be a dad," he said, beaming with pride.
This is exactly the type of dramatic turnabout -- enraged killer to gentle-giant midwife -- that corrections officials in Norway hope to create with this controversial, one-of-a-kind prison, arguably the cushiest the world has to offer.
Founded in 1982, Bastoy Prison is located on a lush, 1-square-mile island of pine trees and rocky coasts, with views of the ocean that are postcard-worthy. It feels more like a resort than jail, and prisoners here enjoy freedoms that would be unthinkable elsewhere.
It's the holiday version of Alcatraz.
There's a beach where prisoners sunbathe in the summer, plenty of good fishing spots, a sauna and tennis courts. Horses roam gravel roads. Some of the 115 prisoners here -- all men and serving time for murder, rape and trafficking heroin, among other crimes -- stay in wooden cottages, painted cheery red. They come and go as they please. Others live in "The Big House," a white mansion on a hill that, on the inside, looks like a college dorm. A chicken lives in the basement, a guard said, and provides eggs for the inmates.
When you ask the cook what's for dinner, he offers up menu choices like "fish balls with white sauce, with shrimps" and "everything from chicken con carne to salmon."
Plenty of people would pay to vacation in a place like this.
On first read, all of that probably sounds infuriating. Shouldn't these men be punished? Why do they get access to all these comforts with others live in poverty?
But if the goal of prison is to change people, Bastoy seems to work.
"If we have created a holiday camp for criminals here, so what?" asked Arne Kvernvik Nilsen, the prison's governor and a former minister and psychologist. He added, "We should reduce the risk of reoffending, because if we don't, what's the point of punishment, except for leaning toward the primitive side of humanity?"
Take a quick look at the numbers: Only 20% of prisoners who come through Norway's prisons reoffend within two years of being released, according to a 2010 report commissioned by the governments of several Nordic countries.
At Bastoy, that figure is even lower, officials say: about 16%.
Compare that with the three-year re-offense rate for state prisons in the U.S.: 43%, according to a 2011 report from the Pew Center on the States, a nonpartisan research group. Older government reports put that number even higher, at more than five in 10.
Ryan King, a research director at Pew and an author of the group's recent report, said it's difficult to compare recidivism rates from state to state, much less from country to country. Instead of focusing on the numbers, he said, one should focus on what a country is or isn't doing to tackle re-offense rates.
Still, Bastoy remains controversial even in academia. Irvin Waller, president of the International Organization for Victim Assistance and a professor at the University of Ottawa, said in an e-mail that the relative niceness of a prison has no effect on whether people commit crimes when they're released. "The key is not that much what happens in prison but what happens when the men are released," he said.
(Jan Petter Vala is serving part of a 10-year murder sentence on a posh island in southern Norway.)
But officials here maintain that their methods do make a difference, and they follow it up with post-release programs. The aim of Bastoy is not to punish or seek revenge, Nilsen said. The only punishment is to take away the prisoner's right to be a free member of society.
Even at a time when Anders Behring Breivik is on trial in Norway for killing 77 people in a terror attack last year -- and the remote possibility he could end up at Bastoy or a similar prison some day -- Nilsen and others stand up for this brand of justice.
Life at Bastoy
To understand Norway's pleasant-prison philosophy, first you have to get a sense of how life at a cushy, low-security prison like Bastoy actually plays out.
There are few rules here. Prisoners can have TVs in their rooms, provided they bring them from "outside" when they're sentenced. They wear whatever clothes they want: jeans, T-shirts. One man had a sweater with pink-and-gray horizontal stripes, but that's as close as it got to the jailbird look. Even guards aren't dressed in uniform, which makes conducting interviews tricky. It's impossible to tell an officer from a drug trafficker.
A common opening question: "So, do you live here?"
Everyone at Bastoy has a job, and prisoners must report to work from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. weekdays. Some people garden; others farm. Some chop down trees and slice them into firewood (It's hard not to think about the wood chipper scene in "Fargo" when you see inmates filleting tree trunks with an enormous circular saw). Others tend to a team of horses, which are used to cart wood and supplies from one part of the island to another. Everyone moves about freely during these tasks. Guards are sometimes present, sometimes not. No one wears shackles or electronic monitoring bracelets.
The idea is for prison to function like a small, self-sustaining village.
For their work, inmates are paid. They get a stipend of 59 Norwegian kroner per day, about $10. They can save that money or spend it on odds and ends in a local shop. Additionally, they get a monthly stipend of about $125 for their food. Kitchen workers -- that's another inmate job -- serve Bastoy residents dinner each day. For breakfast and lunch, inmates use their stipend to make purchases in the local shop and then cook for themselves at home. Many live in small houses that have full kitchens. Others have access to shared cooking space.
The goal, Nilsen said, is to create an environment where people can build self-esteem and reform their lives. "They look at themselves in the mirror, and they think, 'I am s***. I don't care. I am nothing,' " he said. This prison, he says, gives them a chance to see they have worth, "to discover, 'I'm not such a bad guy.' "
In locked-down prisons, inmates are treated "like animals or robots," he said, moving from one planned station to the next, with no choice in the matter. Here, inmates are forced to make choices -- to learn how to be better people.
Prisoners, of course, appreciate this approach.
Kjell Amundsen, a 70-year-old who said he is in jail for a white-collar financial crime, was terrified when he rode the 15-minute ferry from the mainland out to Bastoy.
On a recent afternoon, he was sweeping up in a plant nursery while John Lennon's "Imagine" played on the radio. "I think it's marvelous to be in a prison this way," he said.
He plans to keep up the task after his sentence ends. "I'm living in a flat (when I get out), but I am convinced I should have a little garden," he said.
Bastoy Prison functions like a small village. Everyone has a job, including chopping firewood.
Some prisoners get schooling in a yellow Bavarian-style building near the center of the island. On a recent afternoon, three young men were learning to use computer programs to create 3-D models of cars. All expressed interest in doing this sort of work after their prison terms end.
Tom Remi Berg, a 22-year-old who said he is in prison for the third time after getting into a bar fight and beating a man nearly to death, said he is finally learning his lesson at Bastoy.
He works in the kitchen and is seeking training to become a chef when he's released. He also plays in the prison blues band -- Guilty as Hell -- and lives with his bandmates.
"It's good to have a prison like this," he said. "You can learn to start a new page again."
If escaped, please call
The prisoners are required to check in several times a day so guards can make sure they're still on the island. Nothing but 1½ miles of seawater stops them from leaving; they'd only have to steal one of the prison's boats to cross it, several inmates said.
An escape would be relatively easy.
Prisoners have tried to escape in the past. One swam halfway across the channel and became stranded on a buoy and screamed for rescuers to help, prison officials said. Another made it across the channel by stealing a boat but was caught on the other side.
Many, however, don't want to leave. If they tried and failed, they would be forced to go to a higher-security prison and could have their sentences extended.
When inmates come to his island jail, Nilsen, the governor, gives them a little talk.
Among the wisdom he imparts is this: If you should escape and make it across the water to the free shore, find a phone and call so I know you're OK and "so we don't have to send the coast guard looking for you."
This kind of trust may seem shocking or naïve from the outside, but it's the entire basis for Bastoy's existence. Overnight, only three or four guards (the prison employs 71 administrative staff, including the guards) stay on the island with this group of people who have been convicted of serious crimes. If guards carried weapons (which they don't) it might encourage inmates to take up arms, too, he said.
Further complicating the security situation, some inmates, toward the end of their terms, are allowed to leave the island on a daily ferry to work or attend classes on the mainland.
They're expected to come back on their own free will.
Some prisoners live in dorm-like rooms; they aren't locked in, and guards are not armed.
Inmates are screened to make sure they're mentally stable and unlikely to plot an escape before they come to Bastoy. The vast majority -- 97%, according to Nilsen -- have served part of their sentences at higher-security jails in Norway. In the four years Nilsen has been heading up the prison, there have been no "serious" incidents of violence, he said.
By the time they get to Bastoy, inmates view the island as a relief.
'It's still prison'
There's a question inmates here get asked frequently: When your sentence is up, will you want to leave?
The answer, despite the nice conditions, is always an emphatic yes.
"It's still prison," said Luke, 23. He didn't want his full name used for fear future employers would see it. "In your mind, you are locked (up)."
The simple fact of being taken away from family members is enough to stop Benny, 40, from wanting to offend again. The refugee from Kosovo said he was convicted on drug charges after he was found with 13 pounds of heroin. He didn't want his full name used because he doesn't want to embarrass his family or jeopardize his chance of finding a job after he's released.
Before coming to Bastoy, he sat in a higher-security prison while one of his children was born.
"It doesn't matter how long the sentences get. The sentence doesn't matter," Benny said. "When you take freedom from people, that's what's scary."
There are only 3,600 people in prison in this country, compared with 2.3 million in the United States, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Relative to population, the U.S. has about 10 times as many inmates as Norway.
More than 89% of Norway's jail sentences are less than a year, officials said. In U.S. federal prisons, longer sentences are much more common, with fewer than 2% serving a year or less, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Some researchers support Norway's efforts to lighten sentences.
Think of prison like parenting and it starts to make sense, said Mark A.R. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at UCLA and author of "When Brute Force Fails."
"Every parent knows this. What if you tried to discipline your kid by saying, 'If you don't clean your room, there's a 10% chance I'll kick you out of the house and never see you again'?" he said, referencing the fact that many crimes in the America go unpunished, but the justice system issues harsh sentences when offenders are caught. Grounding the child immediately, a softer sentence, would work better, even though the punishment is less severe.
"We have a criminal justice system (in the United States) that, if it were a parent, we would say it's abusive and neglectful."
Kleiman said victims do have a right to see offenders punished. But in Norway, a country with one of the highest standards of living in the world, staying on a resort-like island with horses might feel like punishment to many people, he said.
Research also suggests that programs like Bastoy that train inmates for their transition back into the free world -- with education, counseling and such -- do help prisoners adjust.
"There is overwhelming evidence that rehabilitation works much better than deterrence as a means of reducing re-offending," said Gerhard Ploeg, a senior adviser at the Ministry of Justice, which oversees Norway's corrections system.
"It's all in the name of reintegration," he added. "You won't be suddenly one day standing on the street with a plastic bag of things you had when you came in."
Mass shooting challenges system
Inmates at Bastoy have plenty of time for activities, including going to the gym and the beach.
Norway's unusual prison policies have been pushed into the international spotlight after a bombing and shooting spree last year in which 77 people were killed, including children.
There's a chance -- although minimal -- that Anders Behring Breivik, who confessed to those crimes, could end up in Bastoy, one of Norway's "open prisons," Nilsen said.
Norwegians value respecting killer's human rights
It's more likely Breivik will be sent to one of Norway's many high-security "closed" prisons, which look much more like their U.S. counterparts.
He also could be set free some day. Norway has a maximum jail sentence of 21 years, which can be extended only when an inmate is deemed to be a real and imminent threat to society. The country expects nearly every prisoner to be returned to society, which influences its efforts to create jail environments that reduce re-offense rates.
"The question we must ask is, 'What kind of person do I want as my neighbor?' " Ploeg said. "How do we want people to come out of prison? If your neighbor were to come out of prison, what would you want him to be like?"
Still, it's likely Breivik's sentence will be extended to the point that he will spend his life in a high-security prison, he said. Or he could go into life-long psychiatric care.
Breivik's case challenges a system that hopes to fix everyone.
The case has unearthed levels of anger that are uncharacteristic of Norway, which prides itself as a home for conflict mediation and human rights, a place that hosts the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony and has one of the best standards of living in the world.
Last week, a man lit himself on fire outside the Oslo courthouse where Breivik's trial is taking place. His motives were unclear, police said.
"(Breivik) doesn't deserve to go to prison," said Camilla Bjerke, 27, who tends bar in Horten, the town on the other side of the water from Bastoy. "He deserves to be hanged outside the courthouse. ... He's just going to go into prison and watch TV and download movies."
Then there's this sentiment: If Breivik were ever released into the public, someone would kill him, several Norwegians said. Inmates at Bastoy echoed those sentiments, saying he would have to be quarantined or he wouldn't be safe on the island.
Others are trying to fight that anger.
Bjorn Ihler, a 20-year-old who narrowly escaped Breivik's shooting spree by diving into the ocean with two children while bullets flew at them, said, "it's very important that we don't let this terrorist change the way we are and the way things work."
"The prison system in Norway is based around the principle of getting criminals back into society, really, and away from their criminal life -- and to get them normal jobs and stuff like that," he said.
He doesn't know how he would feel if Breivik were to be released, but he would like the system to function as usual. "So prisons must be very much focused on getting people to a place where they are able to live normal, non-criminal lives. And that's the best way of preserving society from crime, I think."
Looking to the future
All of these efforts aim to help a person like Vala, the gentle giant who strangled his girlfriend, to get ready for release back into society at the end of his 10-year sentence.
After he helped a toddling calf come into the world, Vala said, he leaned on a rail next to the cow's pen and thought about his life and the murder that landed him here. The symbolism that he had used his hands to end one life and help begin another was not lost on him. "I stayed for six hours," he said. "It was very beautiful."
The night he killed his girlfriend, Vala says, he blacked out and then came to with his hands around her neck, after she was dead.
"We never fight," he said. "We never do. So I don't know what happened."
He felt helpless and out of control when he came to.
But now he's trying to pull it together. He decided to quit drinking for good. And when he's working with animals, he said, feels a new calm wash over him.
It's a change the prison guards have noted, too. Sigurd Vedvik said he met Vala while he was serving out the earlier part of his sentence in a high-security prison. Vedvik was screening him for entry into Bastoy. Vala barely could communicate. He seemed broken.
"When he first came here, he was very afraid of many people," said Vedvik, who sees himself as more of a teacher or social worker than a person who enforces security.
Now, Vala is making friends. Talking more. Taking responsibility for the cattle he's tasked with caring for. He strokes the cows' necks so gently, it seems as if he's worried they will shatter.
When Vala leaves Bastoy, he plans to go into the construction business and hopes to find some way to spend time on a farm.
"I'm trying to think to my future."
That's something he couldn't do after the murder.
And it took a posh prison -- one with cattle and horses -- to get him into that state of mind.
It serves the main purpose of a prison, to remove offenders from society.
Really? Venebles? He was a (very, very sick and twisted) child, and was let out because the court case was not impartial, which is what happens when the media get involved. He is now staying at her Majesty's pleasure. Name a case that wasn't overturned in the European Court of Human Rights for being illegal then. :rollseyes:
dæl wrote:Really? Venebles? He was a (very, very sick and twisted) child, and was let out because the court case was not impartial, which is what happens when the media get involved. He is now staying at her Majesty's pleasure. Name a case that wasn't overturned in the European Court of Human Rights for being illegal then. :rollseyes:
Thats a cop out. No justice whatsoever was served.
Warning the public of a child torturer on the loose was a great call by the media.
The son of a bitch that helped blow up the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie that was released back to Libya and lived there for years before he died, just this month.
16% reoffending rate speaks for itself. We wouldn't be allowed it in Britain though, the right wing press would crucify the politician who even suggested it, same as an open and informed debate on drugs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:The son of a bitch that helped blow up the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie that was released back to Libya and lived there for years before he died, just this month.
Your absolutely right, everyone should be locked up forever, except 75% of them who should be killed in a particularly gruesome manner. Feth the taxes we'd need to pay for such a system. Kill! Maim! Burn!
Your absolutely right, everyone should be locked up forever, except 75% of them who should be killed in a particularly gruesome manner. Feth the taxes we'd need to pay for such a system. Kill! Maim! Burn!
5% reoffending should be considered the maximum. I mean...thats just sane. You should aim for the lowest reoffending rates that are possible.
Why would it cost anything? Just let the inmates do that. As disgusting as offenders are...they have their own code of conduct. Child molesters and other abominable offenders tend to receive 'justice' off these people (frequently the only justice).
All you need to do is allow the prison staff to not interfere.
Frazzled wrote:The son of a bitch that helped blow up the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie that was released back to Libya and lived there for years before he died, just this month.
The lack of dying is actually pretty understandable. Having worked with hospice for quite a while you learn that death is hard to predict. One of the requirements for hospice is that you are certified to die "in 3 months", similar to Lockerbie guy. We have had people who were certified to die for years and just never did.
Not saying that they were right to release him, but if they released him thinking that he was terminal it would not be unusual for him to live as long as he did.
Your absolutely right, everyone should be locked up forever, except 75% of them who should be killed in a particularly gruesome manner. Feth the taxes we'd need to pay for such a system. Kill! Maim! Burn!
5% reoffending should be considered the maximum. I mean...thats just sane. You should aim for the lowest reoffending rates that are possible.
Why would it cost anything? Just let the inmates do that. As disgusting as offenders are...they have their own code of conduct. Child molesters and other abominable offenders tend to receive 'justice' off these people.
All you need to do is allow the prison staff to not interfere.
So the lunatics run the asylum? Can't see anything going wrong with that state of affairs.
mattyrm wrote:
Finally we agree on something!
I knew if we hung around together for a bit we would find common ground!
Frazzled wrote:The son of a bitch that helped blow up the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie that was released back to Libya and lived there for years before he died, just this month.
The lack of dying is actually pretty understandable. Having worked with hospice for quite a while you learn that death is hard to predict. One of the requirements for hospice is that you are certified to die "in 3 months", similar to Lockerbie guy. We have had people who were certified to die for years and just never did.
Not saying that they were right to release him, but if they released him thinking that he was terminal it would not be unusual for him to live as long as he did.
So what?
1. He shouldn't have been let out regardless. His hundreds of victims had no such luxury to go home and be with their family.
2. It makes a mockery of justice and the earlier argument that murderers never get let out. Its a mockery.
Don't bother trying to argue mate, screaming liberals dont want to be refuted, they want to convince themselves that being in an increasingly small minority of people makes them appear nuanced and intelligent.
For the record, invoking the Daily Mail doesn't mean its fictional either! They pick and choose their stories and present them in a manner that invokes your ire, but they don't fully make gak up. Try a Google on one of their stories and you will usually see it on the BBC or some other reputable paper as well.
Be it Somalians beating the gak out of women whilst yelling "kill the white slag" getting let off with a slapped wrists, rapists and murderers eating jelly and ice cream or asylum seekers living in 1.6 million pound houses, the fact of the matter is, this gak actually happens. Far less than avid Mail readers might think, but it actually happens. Just because its relatively rare is it the height of stupidity to complain about it?!
Ian fething Huntley lives a pleasant, well fed, stress free existence, and we are all supposed to be pleased about it.
@mattyrm At least you have the self awareness to realise they are rare cases. Being in a minority does not make someone intelligent, white supremacists are a minority and they seem a few spanners short of a toolbox.
We have been going down the route of harsher sentencing for years, are we in any better a position? Not at all. We should start by taking out from prison those that belong in mental institutions, then we make prison itself a horrible place to be so there goes all the luxuries, then for minor offences we use halfway houses with very strict guidelines and curfews after 6pm and before 9am (break that and you do go inside), this keeps people from going in a minor criminal and coming out a habitual one. But we'll never see something picked for effectiveness because the tabloids have the two main parties over a barrel, and they are scared to do the right thing. Its exactly the same with disability benefits, they are cutting them by 20% when fraud is said to be 0.5% because the papers hate scroungers because they found a few cases of people scamming the system and think that applies to every disabled person in the country. It would be funny if it wasn't so horrifying.
mattyrm wrote: Mate how have we been getting harsher with sentencing?! Surely its the exact opposite?!
I cant put any effort into research mind, I'm running between the kitchen making Catalan Chicken.
Used to be judges could "take into account" sentencing guidelines, now they "must follow." Now disregarding the fact this blurs the line between the lawmakers of Parliament and the law enforcers of the CPS, it's leading to massive overcrowding and doesn't allow judicial discretion.
Figures show that average sentences are already getting longer. Last year 33 per cent of jail terms were for at least six months, against only 15 per cent in the previous year.
Frazzled wrote:The son of a bitch that helped blow up the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie that was released back to Libya and lived there for years before he died, just this month.
The lack of dying is actually pretty understandable. Having worked with hospice for quite a while you learn that death is hard to predict. One of the requirements for hospice is that you are certified to die "in 3 months", similar to Lockerbie guy. We have had people who were certified to die for years and just never did.
Not saying that they were right to release him, but if they released him thinking that he was terminal it would not be unusual for him to live as long as he did.
So what?
1. He shouldn't have been let out regardless. His hundreds of victims had no such luxury to go home and be with their family.
2. It makes a mockery of justice and the earlier argument that murderers never get let out. Its a mockery.
Again, like I said in my post, I'm not saying that they were right to release him. My post had actually zero to do with the decision to release him.
My only point was that "he is going to die in 3 months" is a very hard thing to predict.
Right, but again, 9 times out of 10 with the current system, the victim is always the one who is punished.
That has literally never happened.
Were you not aware that many newspapers outright make up the stories that they print? Because they do.
Here's an example:
Someone's house gets broken into to, they bash the burgler's face in and call the police. The police come round, arrest the burgler, but because he's been injured, they have to talk to the homeowner too, to find out what happened. Since it's obvious that the homeowner was acting in self defence, they release him without charge, and the burgler is prosecuted. Here's what happens when it reaches the press:
"HOMEOWNER ARRESTED FOR TACKLING BURGLER"
Seriously, what do they teach kids these days? Oh yeah, feth all
And about the short sentences many criminals are given for murder and rape? How exactly can that be justified when they get out usually half-way. That is punishment of the victim - lack of justice.
I would agree that many sentences are too short, where the feth do you get the leap from there to "life sentence for everything bar petty shoplifting"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:The son of a bitch that helped blow up the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie that was released back to Libya and lived there for years before he died, just this month.
The lack of dying is actually pretty understandable. Having worked with hospice for quite a while you learn that death is hard to predict. One of the requirements for hospice is that you are certified to die "in 3 months", similar to Lockerbie guy. We have had people who were certified to die for years and just never did.
Not saying that they were right to release him, but if they released him thinking that he was terminal it would not be unusual for him to live as long as he did.
So what?
1. He shouldn't have been let out regardless. His hundreds of victims had no such luxury to go home and be with their family.
2. It makes a mockery of justice and the earlier argument that murderers never get let out. Its a mockery.
Again, like I said in my post, I'm not saying that they were right to release him. My post had actually zero to do with the decision to release him.
My only point was that "he is going to die in 3 months" is a very hard thing to predict.
Yup. Doctors never said he would be dead in 3 months. They gave a broad diagnosis ranging from 3 months to 5/6 years. I think the average was about 2 years.
Disregarding the fact that he had nothing to do with the bombings, obviously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:
So the lunatics run the asylum? Can't see anything going wrong with that state of affairs.
Lunatics DO run the asylum. Where have you been?
In fact, they give them skyTV and playstation 3's.
For good behaviour they might get access to a TV and some consoles. Sky is unlikely since it would cost the prisons millions of pounds in subscriptions, I'd guess Freeview.
Prisoners should have practically no rights what-so-ever (except the very, very basic of human rights) they forfitted their rights when they became criminals. Deciding to work outside of society by breaking the law should mean they get no say in the direction that society takes.
Prisoners should have practically no rights what-so-ever (except the very, very basic of human rights) they forfitted their rights when they became criminals. Deciding to work outside of society by breaking the law should mean they get no say in the direction that society takes.
Personally, I feel that it is okay to not let them vote while incarcerated. But after their sentence is served, they should get to vote again.
Either that or they should never have to pay taxes again. Didn't we start a war about the whole "no taxation without representation" thing?
This article is on how harsher sentencing doesn't bring down reoffending rates.
As to prisoners right to vote, if you remove the problem of which constituency they vote in (a large prison in a small town would affect the overall result quite badly), I can't see any problem with prisoners voting, what do you achieve by not giving them the vote? And what do people fear if you do? There isn't going to be a Crime Party running for office.
Prisoners should have practically no rights what-so-ever (except the very, very basic of human rights) they forfitted their rights when they became criminals. Deciding to work outside of society by breaking the law should mean they get no say in the direction that society takes.
Personally, I feel that it is okay to not let them vote while incarcerated. But after their sentence is served, they should get to vote again.
Either that or they should never have to pay taxes again. Didn't we start a war about the whole "no taxation without representation" thing?
The Contemporary Union of Noble Tobacco Smokers does not approve.
dæl wrote:This article is on how harsher sentencing doesn't bring down reoffending rates.
As to prisoners right to vote, if you remove the problem of which constituency they vote in (a large prison in a small town would affect the overall result quite badly), I can't see any problem with prisoners voting, what do you achieve by not giving them the vote? And what do people fear if you do? There isn't going to be a Crime Party running for office.
I don't know about other countries, but I think in the US prison populations count towards the general population in an area when it comes to assigning district boundaries.
dæl wrote:This article is on how harsher sentencing doesn't bring down reoffending rates.
As to prisoners right to vote, if you remove the problem of which constituency they vote in (a large prison in a small town would affect the overall result quite badly), I can't see any problem with prisoners voting, what do you achieve by not giving them the vote? And what do people fear if you do? There isn't going to be a Crime Party running for office.
dæl wrote:This article is on how harsher sentencing doesn't bring down reoffending rates.
As to prisoners right to vote, if you remove the problem of which constituency they vote in (a large prison in a small town would affect the overall result quite badly), I can't see any problem with prisoners voting, what do you achieve by not giving them the vote? And what do people fear if you do? There isn't going to be a Crime Party running for office.
Such as the BNP.
I'm pretty sure not letting people vote because you don't like their political views is kind of undemocratic. Also, are you trying to say that all prisoners are racists?
dæl wrote:This article is on how harsher sentencing doesn't bring down reoffending rates.
As to prisoners right to vote, if you remove the problem of which constituency they vote in (a large prison in a small town would affect the overall result quite badly), I can't see any problem with prisoners voting, what do you achieve by not giving them the vote? And what do people fear if you do? There isn't going to be a Crime Party running for office.
Such as the BNP.
I'm pretty sure not letting people vote because you don't like their political views is kind of undemocratic. Also, are you trying to say that all prisoners are racists?
He's saying the BNP is a crime party, not that they shouldn't vote.
dæl wrote:This article is on how harsher sentencing doesn't bring down reoffending rates.
As to prisoners right to vote, if you remove the problem of which constituency they vote in (a large prison in a small town would affect the overall result quite badly), I can't see any problem with prisoners voting, what do you achieve by not giving them the vote? And what do people fear if you do? There isn't going to be a Crime Party running for office.
Such as the BNP.
I'm pretty sure not letting people vote because you don't like their political views is kind of undemocratic. Also, are you trying to say that all prisoners are racists?
He's saying the BNP is a crime party, not that they shouldn't vote.
He's saying the BNP is a crime party, not that they shouldn't vote.
That's right.
Apologies, wrong end of the stick.
Totally agree that their entire raison d'etre is tantamount to a hate-crime, but as we learned from the Question Time they let Nick Griffin on, if you give them a platform they make themselves look like idiots.
The thing is...the BNP wouldn't have increased in support without a reason. The core of their party is corrupt and IS tantamount to a hate crime however.
Its probably the shortcomings of the trio of inept parties that we have.
The moderator is determined to slam a panel member. Not that he's wrong but it's bad form.
The Moslem sounds Scottish...is that right?
This Video is Fascinating...This Nick guy is a moron...love it! The First guy that talks though, he could bore a boulder.
Mr Hyena wrote:
Its definitely the shortcomings of the trio of inept parties that we have.
FTFY
They've increased in support because their methodology is one of blame and using scapegoats. And people are much happier to think that someone else is to blame rather than maybe all of us are to a degree.
Mr Hyena wrote:
Its definitely the shortcomings of the trio of inept parties that we have.
FTFY
They've increased in support because their methodology is one of blame and using scapegoats. And people are much happier to think that someone else is to blame rather than maybe all of us are to a degree.
Or its the silly policies the government does that causes it. Its neither natural brits nor immigrants.
The moderator on that QT was gak, and the whole show was farcical. If your going to have fringe elements on, just fething have them on, dont turn the whole shot into a circus.
The way they just let audience members fully stand up and shout at the bloke as well, it was just ridiculous.
Basically thanks to the BBC being ridiculous, I wound up feeling sorry for the racist dick head.
) and rehabilitation for those who might benefit from it.
will be able to apply for parole before he's 55 and will likely tell some 
You know, we could chop peoples hands off for theft, then they can't steal until they get really good with their feet.
