Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have to say, that's not a bad idea looking at peoples' attitude to prison.

mattyrm wrote:The Americans have the right idea, and America is a civilised country, why the feth cant Europeans have prisons like in the States?

I watched Louis Theroux when he was in jail, those prisons really sucked.. 16 guys in one cell and gak like that?

We need to get more American and have these scumbags living in gak.

Coronation Street indeed!

There's a fun documentary on YouTube about Russian prisons... although it had been whitewashed for the Western media it was pretty obvious that the cellmates feared for their lives

I don't think Capital Punishment is Idiotic, but Hislop makes a good point for keep people in jail for life instead of killing them.

Edit: Further Clarification.
Removing somebody completely from society, silencing their voice through imprisonment is a greater punishment than killing them. Prisons just need to be tougher for this to actually work.
If prison costs were reduced I think Capital Punishment support would finally trail off.

In Soviet Russia, prison is actually scary.

Lord Rogukiel wrote:In Soviet Russia, prison is actually scary.

As a general rule, the worse conditions are in a nation's prisons, the less likely you are to have actually committed the offence that you're in there for.

Medium of Death wrote:


I don't think Capital Punishment is Idiotic, but Hislop makes a good point for keep people in jail for life instead of killing them.

(Can't watch as I'm at work... but I promise that I shall!)

I linked Gallows as a more iconic image... I'm actually against the death penalty. It's just harder to post a picture that gives connotations of an eternity spent in perpetual misery.

I mean that's what life in prison should be; being hung from a wall begging for death as maggots chew at your rotting feet but being ever-sustained just from the edge of death. *That's* suffering, death is a merciful way out after that :p

Henners91 wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:


I don't think Capital Punishment is Idiotic, but Hislop makes a good point for keep people in jail for life instead of killing them.

(Can't watch as I'm at work... but I promise that I shall!)

I linked Gallows as a more iconic image... I'm actually against the death penalty. It's just harder to post a picture that gives connotations of an eternity spent in perpetual misery.

I mean that's what life in prison should be; being hung from a wall begging for death as maggots chew at your rotting feet but being ever-sustained just from the edge of death. *That's* suffering, death is a merciful way out after that :p

But...why? Anyone who left a place like that would be a wretch by the time they left and probably incapable of living in society in any form whatsoever.

Removing somebody completely from society, silencing their voice through imprisonment is a greater punishment than killing them. Prisons just need to be tougher for this to actually work.
If prison costs were reduced I think Capital Punishment support would finally trail off.

I agree with Ian Hislop in the main, but feth me.. WHY does prison have to be COMFY?!

I'm not saying kill everyone, but when I was based at 40 commando, we lived in 6 man flats when we were in the UK, it was fine. 6 beds, 3 showers and a kitchen. Why do prisoners share a cell with one guy? Why not 8 guys? Or Ten guys?

And in Afghanistan.. fething hell! It was like the Ritz compared to Iraq, we had cold running water for one shower between 100 of us, fold up camping beds and one hot meal a day.. It was glorious. In Iraq it was shower by standing on a pallet and pouring half a bottle of water over your head, soap up, rinse it off with the other half. Live in a fething hole under a poncho, and eat boil in the bag rations.. for 11 weeks this went on!

If I can happily do all of the above, these mother fethers can live more spartanly.

gak, the big softie that I am, I will even let them have heated showers and two hot meals a day.

But why not, say.. 12 man dorm rooms, no TV, no internet, porridge for breakfast, cold mid-day meal, decent dinner.. something like that?

I dont want to over think it, im just making a point. The fethers should be clothed and fed and watered, but not fething bragging about how nice jail is cos they get to watch fething Coronation Street!

Hippie pinko liberals (Labour) always seem to decide you are arguing for the death penalty when you even mention that jail seems to be too bloody easy, and I'm not!

I'm simply saying, is it against your "human rights" to merely have a "decent" standard of living in prison? Why the feth do they get to watch television for example!?

I completely agree with your points, I posted Hislop in response to Henners.

I don't think 8-10 people per cell works though, if you watch Louis' documentary it seems to say that.

The problem with large cells is that it seems to give some of the prisoners a sense of authority/society within the prison, which is probably why you see more prison gangs in the USA versus the UK. By keeping them away from as many people as possible and the State deciding when and who they interact with you assert control over them.

I agree with a lot of what Matty said. My old Principal said that the only 2 rights we had were the right to live and the right to a fair trial. I agree with those for prisoners, you have your fair trial and your alive. A shelter is provided as is food. Cereal for breakfast, sandwich for lunch and hot meal for dinner. You have facilities to use to wash and clothes are provided. What more do they need?

I do think as well though for extreme cases; genocide, treason, war crimes, mass killers like Brevik the death penalty is the option to go. The rest, prison. Those on minor sentences should be on work crews in the area (chain gang style). Serious offenders under lock and key.

For me that is what prison should be. Stone floored, blankets, camp beds and thin pillow to sleep on.

Testify wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:


I don't think Capital Punishment is Idiotic, but Hislop makes a good point for keep people in jail for life instead of killing them.

(Can't watch as I'm at work... but I promise that I shall!)

I linked Gallows as a more iconic image... I'm actually against the death penalty. It's just harder to post a picture that gives connotations of an eternity spent in perpetual misery.

I mean that's what life in prison should be; being hung from a wall begging for death as maggots chew at your rotting feet but being ever-sustained just from the edge of death. *That's* suffering, death is a merciful way out after that :p

But...why? Anyone who left a place like that would be a wretch by the time they left and probably incapable of living in society in any form whatsoever.

Maybe we don't want them in society


Prison should not be pleasent.

Now, rehabilitation for petty criminals is a good idea, but serious repeat offenders should get locked up in horrible places and never see the light of day again.

Three strikes and your locked away for good, and in the least expensive way possable.


I am a firm believer that criminal acts should result in the suspension of your civil rights, all of them. You don't want to play by the rules, then the rules will no longer apply to you.

Repeat offenders are caused by bad prisons, also I'd rather have prisoners in comfy cells then the private for profit prisons in the US.

Revenge fantasies are the best.

youbedead wrote:Repeat offenders are caused by bad prisons, also I'd rather have prisoners in comfy cells then the private for profit prisons in the US.

Ummm, no.


If you don't want to go back, you won't do what sent you there again.

And we won't have repeat offenders if they arn't let out to repeat the crime.

And the people who wouldn't be stopped are the ones that are beyond help, and they are ones that should never walk out.


Prisons are a joke in the modern world. Our worst criminals get the best prisons, and our not so bad ones get stuck in the really bad prisons.


We should provide only basic medical care, same meal twice a day, and sparten cells. Nothing that could be seen as nice or even tolerable.

LoneLictor wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Box him up and ship him to Louisiana, we'll send him to the Farm(Louisiana State Penitentiary, more commonly known as Angola). Let's see how he enjoys forced farming(and sexual slavery among prisoners) in the South and how it compares to his little prison show.

Suggesting rape as a punishment ain't okay.

No one is suggesting it. But it DOES happen in American prisons with frightening regularity.

My point, because you missed it to focus on a single throwaway comment that is one of the reasons that people want to CLOSE Angola for, was that if he thinks that prison is a cushy, friendly place that he thinks he'd enjoy, don't send him to one with that sort of reputation.

So everyone's just taking him at his word, is that it? Seems to me there's probably a lot of bravado going on there. Big man, isn't scared of prison, "I don't care, whatevs." Not so convinced that he isn't bothered. He said it so many times - methinks the lady dost protest to much, and all that.

Grey Templar wrote:

youbedead wrote:Repeat offenders are caused by bad prisons, also I'd rather have prisoners in comfy cells then the private for profit prisons in the US.

Ummm, no.


If you don't want to go back, you won't do what sent you there again.

And we won't have repeat offenders if they arn't let out to repeat the crime.

And the people who wouldn't be stopped are the ones that are beyond help, and they are ones that should never walk out.


Prisons are a joke in the modern world. Our worst criminals get the best prisons, and our not so bad ones get stuck in the really bad prisons.


We should provide only basic medical care, same meal twice a day, and sparten cells. Nothing that could be seen as nice or even tolerable.

Um yes, the worse a prisoner is treated the more likely it is that they'll become a repeat offender, I know that this might seem contradictory. Shouldn't prisons be so horrible that you never want go back?
The problem is that the evidence doesn't support that.

The national recidivism rate in the United States is 67.5 percent according to information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics
Recidivism is when an individual released from prison re-offends and returns to prison. It is the most accurate internationally comparable measurement of how successful a particular correctional system is. To evaluate the US system, let's compare recidivism rates in some other countries:
Sweden's national recidivism rate is 35 percent (Source).
According to a report from The Japan Times, Japan reached an all-time high recidivism rate in 2006, 38,8 percent (Article in The Japan Times).
Here (Article) is a very well written article about recidivism rates in Finland during 1993-2001, covering a wide variety of specific population groups. The article is in English.
Canada's recidivism rate is roughlt 35 percent for men and 20 percent for women (Study Canadian Recidivism - PDF).
Information about recidivism and other prison related statistics for Nebraska is available at Nebraska Department of Correctional Services web site.

\

http://releasedandrestored.org/statistics.html

Nations that treat there prisoners better have lower recidivism

youbedead wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

youbedead wrote:Repeat offenders are caused by bad prisons, also I'd rather have prisoners in comfy cells then the private for profit prisons in the US.

Ummm, no.


If you don't want to go back, you won't do what sent you there again.

And we won't have repeat offenders if they arn't let out to repeat the crime.

And the people who wouldn't be stopped are the ones that are beyond help, and they are ones that should never walk out.


Prisons are a joke in the modern world. Our worst criminals get the best prisons, and our not so bad ones get stuck in the really bad prisons.


We should provide only basic medical care, same meal twice a day, and sparten cells. Nothing that could be seen as nice or even tolerable.

Um yes, the worse a prisoner is treated the more likely it is that they'll become a repeat offender, I know that this might seem contradictory. Shouldn't prisons be so horrible that you never want go back?
The problem is that the evidence doesn't support that.

The national recidivism rate in the United States is 67.5 percent according to information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics
Recidivism is when an individual released from prison re-offends and returns to prison. It is the most accurate internationally comparable measurement of how successful a particular correctional system is. To evaluate the US system, let's compare recidivism rates in some other countries:
Sweden's national recidivism rate is 35 percent (Source).
According to a report from The Japan Times, Japan reached an all-time high recidivism rate in 2006, 38,8 percent (Article in The Japan Times).
Here (Article) is a very well written article about recidivism rates in Finland during 1993-2001, covering a wide variety of specific population groups. The article is in English.
Canada's recidivism rate is roughlt 35 percent for men and 20 percent for women (Study Canadian Recidivism - PDF).
Information about recidivism and other prison related statistics for Nebraska is available at Nebraska Department of Correctional Services web site.

\

http://releasedandrestored.org/statistics.html

Nations that treat there prisoners better have lower recidivism

It could also be that the nations mentioned in that report have social welfare nets that are largely absent in the United States. A prisoner released in Sweden or Japan has the option of living on state welfare for a while. Prisoners released in the U.S. generally have to immediately get a job or starve. And since getting jobs is difficult for convicted felons, they often turn back to crime as a simple method of survival.

Testify wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:


I don't think Capital Punishment is Idiotic, but Hislop makes a good point for keep people in jail for life instead of killing them.

(Can't watch as I'm at work... but I promise that I shall!)

I linked Gallows as a more iconic image... I'm actually against the death penalty. It's just harder to post a picture that gives connotations of an eternity spent in perpetual misery.

I mean that's what life in prison should be; being hung from a wall begging for death as maggots chew at your rotting feet but being ever-sustained just from the edge of death. *That's* suffering, death is a merciful way out after that :p

But...why? Anyone who left a place like that would be a wretch by the time they left and probably incapable of living in society in any form whatsoever.

They don't leave. They got life


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:I completely agree with your points, I posted Hislop in response to Henners.

I don't think 8-10 people per cell works though, if you watch Louis' documentary it seems to say that.

The problem with large cells is that it seems to give some of the prisoners a sense of authority/society within the prison, which is probably why you see more prison gangs in the USA versus the UK. By keeping them away from as many people as possible and the State deciding when and who they interact with you assert control over them.

It's a shame that solitary cells are expensive.

Platuan4th wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Box him up and ship him to Louisiana, we'll send him to the Farm(Louisiana State Penitentiary, more commonly known as Angola). Let's see how he enjoys forced farming(and sexual slavery among prisoners) in the South and how it compares to his little prison show.

Suggesting rape as a punishment ain't okay.

No one is suggesting it. But it DOES happen in American prisons with frightening regularity.

My point, because you missed it to focus on a single throwaway comment that is one of the reasons that people want to CLOSE Angola for, was that if he thinks that prison is a cushy, friendly place that he thinks he'd enjoy, don't send him to one with that sort of reputation.

Actually, you did suggest it. Part of your post is that he should go to that prison because they'll rape him there. So ya, you did say that.

LoneLictor wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Box him up and ship him to Louisiana, we'll send him to the Farm(Louisiana State Penitentiary, more commonly known as Angola). Let's see how he enjoys forced farming(and sexual slavery among prisoners) in the South and how it compares to his little prison show.

Suggesting rape as a punishment ain't okay.

No one is suggesting it. But it DOES happen in American prisons with frightening regularity.

My point, because you missed it to focus on a single throwaway comment that is one of the reasons that people want to CLOSE Angola for, was that if he thinks that prison is a cushy, friendly place that he thinks he'd enjoy, don't send him to one with that sort of reputation.

Actually, you did suggest it. Part of your post is that he should go to that prison because they'll rape him there. So ya, you did say that.

If that's how you choose to read it, good on ya. It's obviously something I said tongue in cheek(hence, it being a throwaway comment), but toneless internet and all that.

No one from Louisiana would ever honestly(read: as anything but a joke) suggest sending someone to Angola unless they did something really heinous. Judges don't send you there to rehabilitate you, they send you there to forget about you, because you tend not to be getting out. When any state suggests prison reforms, Angola is the comparison they tend to use because of its reputation for how badly prisoners are treated there.

scarletsquig wrote:I'm in favour of turning a remote island off the western coast of Scotland into a prison for any violent criminals.

No TV or games consoles. Cold, damp, and miserable. Manual labour available if they want to get some fresh air.

I'm not in favour of the gulag approach or squishing them all in like battery hens, but there's no reason it should be as comfortable as it currently is for murderers.

If I can't afford to have my heating on in winter, then prisoners shouldn't be getting that luxury either.

Also, there is currently an island prison in Norway which takes this exact approach and has very low re-offending rates.

If you're referring to Bastøy they allow iPods for the prisoners and certainly have heating during winter. In fact, Bastøy is arguably more comfortable than a normal prison.

Implement the chain gang across the country...

youbedead wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

youbedead wrote:Repeat offenders are caused by bad prisons, also I'd rather have prisoners in comfy cells then the private for profit prisons in the US.

Ummm, no.


If you don't want to go back, you won't do what sent you there again.

And we won't have repeat offenders if they arn't let out to repeat the crime.

And the people who wouldn't be stopped are the ones that are beyond help, and they are ones that should never walk out.


Prisons are a joke in the modern world. Our worst criminals get the best prisons, and our not so bad ones get stuck in the really bad prisons.


We should provide only basic medical care, same meal twice a day, and sparten cells. Nothing that could be seen as nice or even tolerable.

Um yes, the worse a prisoner is treated the more likely it is that they'll become a repeat offender, I know that this might seem contradictory. Shouldn't prisons be so horrible that you never want go back?
The problem is that the evidence doesn't support that.

The national recidivism rate in the United States is 67.5 percent according to information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics
Recidivism is when an individual released from prison re-offends and returns to prison. It is the most accurate internationally comparable measurement of how successful a particular correctional system is. To evaluate the US system, let's compare recidivism rates in some other countries:
Sweden's national recidivism rate is 35 percent (Source).
According to a report from The Japan Times, Japan reached an all-time high recidivism rate in 2006, 38,8 percent (Article in The Japan Times).
Here (Article) is a very well written article about recidivism rates in Finland during 1993-2001, covering a wide variety of specific population groups. The article is in English.
Canada's recidivism rate is roughlt 35 percent for men and 20 percent for women (Study Canadian Recidivism - PDF).
Information about recidivism and other prison related statistics for Nebraska is available at Nebraska Department of Correctional Services web site.

\

http://releasedandrestored.org/statistics.html

Nations that treat there prisoners better have lower recidivism

That is correlation, not causation.

The real reason is, as deathholydeath pointed out, that serious criminals are discriminated against and have no safety net. The discrimination part is certaintly justified.


And for alot of criminals, prison is better then being back home. Lots of criminals are homeless or live in impoverished areas. If prison was worse then their situation at home, we would see crime drop.

Implemt labor camps

So something I'm curious about regarding the death penalty: Lots of people have been found innocent or at least their guilt called into question enough to reverse the death penalty due to DNA evidence. A lot of them seem to be people who were convicted before using DNA evidence was available. But since DNA evidence has become available, has anyone been convicted and sentenced with the help of DNA evidence and then been found innocent? A lot of critics talk about how the death penalty is wrong because so many people have been wrongly convicted. Obviously, the system is still not perfect, but it seems like, if anything, being able to accurately determine guilt or innocence has become a lot more reliable since the advent of DNA evidence.

Grey Templar wrote:
If you don't want to go back, you won't do what sent you there again.

What, get caught?
If everyone who ever committed a crime was locked up for it, society would collapse. More than half of the population would be in prison.
Even people who commit "proper" crimes have a very, very small chance of being caught. Someone who sees red and rapes his girlfriend isn't going to be deterred by any prison.

Grey Templar wrote:

And for alot of criminals, prison is better then being back home. Lots of criminals are homeless or live in impoverished areas. If prison was worse then their situation at home, we would see crime drop.

Just like how the death penality has reduced the murder rate; wait a second......

The only real way of reducing reoffending rates is to properly rehabilitate criminals when they are in prison and to provide them with a high level of support once they have left. As this is expensive governments (egged on by the press) fall back on the more traditional approach to imprisonment, despite the fact that it has never worked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:
If everyone who ever committed a crime was locked up for it, society would collapse. More than half of the population would be in prison.

Everyone, or as near as damn it, has commited at least 1 crime. In such an ordered and regulated society as ours it is inevitable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hordini wrote:So something I'm curious about regarding the death penalty: Lots of people have been found innocent or at least their guilt called into question enough to reverse the death penalty due to DNA evidence. A lot of them seem to be people who were convicted before using DNA evidence was available. But since DNA evidence has become available, has anyone been convicted and sentenced with the help of DNA evidence and then been found innocent? A lot of critics talk about how the death penalty is wrong because so many people have been wrongly convicted. Obviously, the system is still not perfect, but it seems like, if anything, being able to accurately determine guilt or innocence has become a lot more reliable since the advent of DNA evidence.

While DNA evidence can be very useful it is far from infallible, while the theory is sound there will always be an element of human error. In addition there are technical limitations, certain markers are more common in certain ethinic groups which can seriously alter the statistics of a sample being deemed to come from the defendant for example. DNA evidence by itself can't lead to a conviction, well it couldn't in the UK 5 years or so ago but I doubt that things have changed since.