I have no idea of what types of rehabilitation programmes go on in prison. What sort of stuff do they do? Is it proved to be effective?
Drug addicts for example. They should be helped to kick the habit so when they are released they're not going to be looking for something to steal so they can buy their next fix. There should also be some decent support for people who've just left prison to assist them with getting back into society and hopefully keeping them off the path that led them into prison in the first place.
Roughly half of the people who go to prison re-offend within the first year of release, so it's clearly not a deterrent.
I presume that they are going to find the space for all these burglars in jail by releasing the paedophiles, rapists & murderers :rolleyes:
If this policy is adopted then in 6 months time they'll be moaning about criminals being released from jail early in order to fit all these criminals in.
Drug addicts for example. They should be helped to kick the habit so when they are released they're not going to be looking for something to steal so they can buy their next fix. There should also be some decent support for people who've just left prison to assist them with getting back into society and hopefully keeping them off the path that led them into prison in the first place.
Roughly half of the people who go to prison re-offend within the first year of release, so it's clearly not a deterrent.
From watching that "Strangeways" programme the other night it seems that drugs were rife in the prison. It must be very hard to try to get someone off drugs if its all around them.
I have also heard (and I have no idea if its true) that some prisons turn a blind eye to it as they'd rather have docile happy prisoners than ones suffering withdrawal and being violent.
But I agree, the idea of that is a good. Any education is a good thing - even learning how to read and write property is something.
We could just do what we used to do. We don't have enough prison-space? Well, we have prisoners, dispatch numbers of them to a quarry, have them quarry the stone to build the prison, then have other prisoners to build the prison.
In the interests of reform, some of them will learn how to brick-lay, some will learn how to be plumbers, others will learn how to be electricians.
Have it all overseen by guards & trade professionals so that nothing is amiss.
Jobs a goodun
But wouldn't that breach their 'human rights' :rolleyes:
The problem with jail - especially for "property crimes" - is that it isn't very effective. All it does is move the date of the next offence to sometime into the near future.
Rather than a simplistic "lock 'em all up" policy shouldn't we be discovering why jail FAILS and fixing that. Much better in the long run as it will significantly reduce the revolving door problem we have currently where most people inside have been in jail before.
As someone who has been burgled, I think it's a good idea.
Build cheap no-frills prisons to house them I say. If they don't want to be incarcerated, they know what to do - choose the law-abiding route instead of the scumbag option.
I'm not sure what 'frills' you think we are wasting money on, but prisons are hugely expensive because of the SECURITY not because of the hot tubs and china leopards provided. Building cheap prisons with no staff to keep them secure seems an unattractive policy somehow.
The problem with jail - especially for "property crimes" - is that it isn't very effective. All it does is move the date of the next offence to sometime into the near future.
Rather than a simplistic "lock 'em all up" policy shouldn't we be discovering why jail FAILS and fixing that. Much better in the long run as it will significantly reduce the revolving door problem we have currently where most people inside have been in jail before.
Ok but in the meantime what steps will be taken to protect householders and the public while we work out the better solution. How long will that better solution take to be discovered, months years, decades, in the meantime do people just accept and labour under the burden of these and other so called petty crimes that have such debilitating affect on their everyday lives.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic but these discussions so aften become about what's best for the offender and IMO we've got to a point where we need to start asking who's welfare should be the main priority. My bias is it's mine and the publics, not an offender who chooses to do these crimes. There's an argument that somehow the offender has to be led kicking and screaming to rehabilitation, from what I have heard it's usually just a case of someone deciding to get themselves together and until they decide that keep locking them up for long periods of time along with the opportunity to be able to better themselves while inside should they choose to take that option. I'm quite happy to see my taxes being spent on building more prisons.
I'd prefer to see sentencing that encourages the criminal to empathise with the victim - guilt, rather than fear of getting caught is more likely to prevent reoffending. And I'd prefer to live next door to a reformed burglar rather than one who hadn't yet worked out how to get into my house undetected.
For young, first time offenders prison is likely to do more harm than good IMO.
I notice the headline bears no relation to the actual story in any case. :rolleyes: Typical Daily Mail.
Most common burglars are drug addicts. As long as they are drug addicts (and as long as drugs are criminalised), they will continue to steal to feed their habit. Sending them to prison does nothing to address the root cause of the their offending (especially given the proliferation of drugs in jail).
And for the young, badly raised burglar doing it for money / kicks, then sending them to jail is the surest way possible to have them become lifelong career criminals.
So no, sending every burglar to jail is not a good idea.
I'd prefer to see sentencing that encourages the criminal to empathise with the victim - guilt, rather than fear of getting caught is more likely to prevent reoffending. And I'd prefer to live next door to a reformed burglar rather than one who hadn't yet worked out how to get into my house undetected.
For young, first time offenders prison is likely to do more harm than good IMO.
The semi professional criminal isn't typically very big on "empathy".
An period of imprisonment early in an offending career serves as a wake up call to those in the process of going off the rails. Opportunistic criminals tend to be optimists; the message they are currently getting is, if you burgle a house you have a very high liklihood of not going to prison for it - odds they are more than happy to accept. Having got away with it once or twice, a pattern of reinforcement is quickly established.
Early intervention by society unambiguously showing its disapproval, via a guarenteed few months in prison for a first offence, is actually doing most petty borderline oportunistic criminals a longer term favour by preventing them from becoming career criminals so ruining their lives [not to mention those of their countless victims]. A kind of societal "tough love".
The problem with jail - especially for "property crimes" - is that it isn't very effective. All it does is move the date of the next offence to sometime into the near future.
Rather than a simplistic "lock 'em all up" policy shouldn't we be discovering why jail FAILS and fixing that. Much better in the long run as it will significantly reduce the revolving door problem we have currently where most people inside have been in jail before.
Depends what you mean by "effective". Prevention and deterrence are important aspects, but so is vengeance. If a victim of crime is satisfied that his attacker is suffering, then imprisonment is working.
And until you can think up something which better prevents repeat offending and at the same time satisfies the victim's justified desire for vengeance, we better keep locking them up.
Depends what you mean by "effective". Prevention and deterrence are important aspects, but so is vengeance. If a victim of crime is satisfied that his attacker is suffering, then imprisonment is working.
And until you can think up something which better prevents repeat offending and at the same time satisfies the victim's justified desire for vengeance, we better keep locking them up.
and
Originally Posted by flobadob
Punishment isn't all about deterrent and rehabilitation. There is also a strong element of vengeance, which seems to be a dirty world to vicars and Guardian columnists but to which the victims of crime feel they have a right. And I feel they do too.
The repeated desire for "vengeance" [ie revenge] is, imo in itself, no more than an unhealthy, legally sanctioned outlet for sadistic impulses.
Vengeance makes you feel good personally; rehabilitation and deterrence improve society as a whole. A far more laudable goal.
An period of imprisonment early in an offending career serves as a wake up call to those in the process of going off the rails.
Often all is needed is the young offender being brought back in line, by parents, teachers, neighbours, a severe talking to from the police with reparation etc. For many youngsters, the shame of getting caught is enough in itself to be a wake-up call and you shouldn't underestimate the effect good parenting and non-legal remedies can have on nipping these things in the bud.
If you have children how would *you* deal with a situation where you'd became aware your son or daughter had committed theft or burglary. Hand them over to a justice system that guaranteed a custodial sentence, mixing with career criminals?
I think anyone who has been raped, burgled or attacked etc would feel they want the perpetrator to go to jail, not a short term reaction, but the correct and proper thing to prevent others being victims.
Comments
If this does work out as planned, it is excellent news.
There will be much pleading in court that the offence in question is only a minor one though, and therefore exempt from prison.
Drug addicts for example. They should be helped to kick the habit so when they are released they're not going to be looking for something to steal so they can buy their next fix. There should also be some decent support for people who've just left prison to assist them with getting back into society and hopefully keeping them off the path that led them into prison in the first place.
Roughly half of the people who go to prison re-offend within the first year of release, so it's clearly not a deterrent.
If this policy is adopted then in 6 months time they'll be moaning about criminals being released from jail early in order to fit all these criminals in.
From watching that "Strangeways" programme the other night it seems that drugs were rife in the prison. It must be very hard to try to get someone off drugs if its all around them.
I have also heard (and I have no idea if its true) that some prisons turn a blind eye to it as they'd rather have docile happy prisoners than ones suffering withdrawal and being violent.
But I agree, the idea of that is a good. Any education is a good thing - even learning how to read and write property is something.
Do you picture a burglar carrying a bag with 'swag' written on it too
But wouldn't that breach their 'human rights' :rolleyes:
Rather than a simplistic "lock 'em all up" policy shouldn't we be discovering why jail FAILS and fixing that. Much better in the long run as it will significantly reduce the revolving door problem we have currently where most people inside have been in jail before.
Well maybe the "Rehabilitation" lot.
I'm not sure what 'frills' you think we are wasting money on, but prisons are hugely expensive because of the SECURITY not because of the hot tubs and china leopards provided. Building cheap prisons with no staff to keep them secure seems an unattractive policy somehow.
Ok but in the meantime what steps will be taken to protect householders and the public while we work out the better solution. How long will that better solution take to be discovered, months years, decades, in the meantime do people just accept and labour under the burden of these and other so called petty crimes that have such debilitating affect on their everyday lives.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic but these discussions so aften become about what's best for the offender and IMO we've got to a point where we need to start asking who's welfare should be the main priority. My bias is it's mine and the publics, not an offender who chooses to do these crimes. There's an argument that somehow the offender has to be led kicking and screaming to rehabilitation, from what I have heard it's usually just a case of someone deciding to get themselves together and until they decide that keep locking them up for long periods of time along with the opportunity to be able to better themselves while inside should they choose to take that option. I'm quite happy to see my taxes being spent on building more prisons.
For young, first time offenders prison is likely to do more harm than good IMO.
Most common burglars are drug addicts. As long as they are drug addicts (and as long as drugs are criminalised), they will continue to steal to feed their habit. Sending them to prison does nothing to address the root cause of the their offending (especially given the proliferation of drugs in jail).
And for the young, badly raised burglar doing it for money / kicks, then sending them to jail is the surest way possible to have them become lifelong career criminals.
So no, sending every burglar to jail is not a good idea.
The semi professional criminal isn't typically very big on "empathy".
An period of imprisonment early in an offending career serves as a wake up call to those in the process of going off the rails. Opportunistic criminals tend to be optimists; the message they are currently getting is, if you burgle a house you have a very high liklihood of not going to prison for it - odds they are more than happy to accept. Having got away with it once or twice, a pattern of reinforcement is quickly established.
Early intervention by society unambiguously showing its disapproval, via a guarenteed few months in prison for a first offence, is actually doing most petty borderline oportunistic criminals a longer term favour by preventing them from becoming career criminals so ruining their lives [not to mention those of their countless victims]. A kind of societal "tough love".
Depends what you mean by "effective". Prevention and deterrence are important aspects, but so is vengeance. If a victim of crime is satisfied that his attacker is suffering, then imprisonment is working.
And until you can think up something which better prevents repeat offending and at the same time satisfies the victim's justified desire for vengeance, we better keep locking them up.
Britain could always revoke it. You know - no parliament can bind a future parliament.
The repeated desire for "vengeance" [ie revenge] is, imo in itself, no more than an unhealthy, legally sanctioned outlet for sadistic impulses.
Vengeance makes you feel good personally; rehabilitation and deterrence improve society as a whole. A far more laudable goal.
In other words "normal" and "human".
"Vengeance makes you feel good personally; rehabilitation and deterrence improve society as a whole. A far more laudable goal."
Of course the best thing would be if you could achieve both: make sure the perpetrator suffers and is rehabilitated.
Sorry just to clarify; are you really saying that you consider sadistic impulses to be "normal", "human" and thus presumably in your mind healthy?
The desire for revenge when someone is wronged is human and normal. Ask someone who has been burgled.
As a short term reaction - yes; as a philosophy by which to live your life .........:eek:
If you have children how would *you* deal with a situation where you'd became aware your son or daughter had committed theft or burglary. Hand them over to a justice system that guaranteed a custodial sentence, mixing with career criminals?