Does Prison Work?

[Argonheart_Po]

If it's rehabilitation you're after, then no it doesn't.

I must have met dozens of prisoners, or people just about to go to prison who've given me a "prison doesn't work for me mate", "it's just a training ground" "trying to stay off drugs - too many in there" blah blah assuming that a my liberal sensibilities will kick in - all prisoners are victims themselves so the liberals will tell each other, and the prisoners themselves - and I might do something to get them out, or prevent them from going in . . .

I always reply in the same way "it works for me mate". "Huh?" - the reply. "It means you're not burgling my house, stealing my car, or fighting when I'm out for a meal" I say. And you know what - they all laugh - every single one of them. The face, previously downcast, worried with fake furrows in the brow now broadens with mirth. They've been called on a lie and as if a joke between friends has been played we chuckle together at the utter hilarious bullshit of their previous statements.

They know, as I know, as every single person should know - that prison does work if you want to reduce crime.

[Vince]

It works for the duration they're inside. Thats the extent you're correct. Execution works for the same reason as does transporting to Australia. I'm not concerned by the rights of prisoners etc but because prison is, for reasons I don't understand, incredibly expensive it may not be the best way of tackling crime and so should be reserved for
1) People likely to re-offend
2) People who may well not re-offend but if they were to do so the likely gravity of that crime makes it not worse the risk of them re-offending.

[Argonheart_Po]

1) People likely to re-offend

That's about 80-90% of them.

[equus]

I know that you are just taking the piss, but in case you actually intended to say something with this statement, could you clarify what you mean by "prison" and "work"?

Do you mean "does any imprisonment for any offence reduce crime in aggregate"?

Or did you mean "is it possible to find any offence and prison sentence for which the outcome is reduced crime"

Or "everyone who has ever committed any crime should go to jail forever, as this would reduce crime"

Or perhaps, the current criminal justice system in Victoria is about right.

You may be right. Who knows.

[Argonheart_Po]

equus - I know you're trying to say something, we can all see that, but it didn't come out right now did it?

Would you like to try again?

[StanDeMan]

From the friends I have I'd say it worked for about 90%. One or two one year stints was usually enough.
I have one friend whose been in about 5 times for drunk driving and he still doesn't get it. He's about 55 now and doing another year or so.
One of my nephews recently did a few days in L.A. county for some drug shit and it scared him pretty well; and that's just jail. He's doing 10 days somewhere in northern California now for a DUI but is pretty happy with that as it was almost looking like a year or more. So far he's followed all his rehab and probation conditions like a Sunday church schedule. It's either that or the gang bangers

Anger management classes also look like a good deal.

[equus]

equus - I know you're trying to say something, we can all see that, but it didn't come out right now did it?

Would you like to try again?

Sure, hows this.

Please make your question meaningful.

[CatScanMan]

Worked for me. I did a (very) little time for burglary when I was 17. Apart from a possession of cannabis charge when I was 18 I've been good ever since. I've now got loads of education including a 2:1 degree from one of the best politics departments in the UK and have travelled the world.

[Lavite]

The baseball concept of "Three Strikes and You Are Out", the third felony conviction and you do life in prison, works. Crime rates did drop dramatically.

[Argonheart_Po]

The baseball concept of "Three Strikes and You Are Out", the third felony conviction and you do life in prison, works. Crime rates did drop dramatically.

It doesn't surprise me at all. When the ACLU wins a lawsuit to protest overcrowded prisons, within 3 years the states prison population looks pretty much the same. Why? Because the released prisoners go out and commit crimes usually there's a 5-10% spike in violent crimes in these communities and soon the prisons are full again….

It brings lawsuits against state prison systems arguing that the prisons are so overcrowded that they represent “cruel and unusual” punishment. The A.C.L.U. virtually always wins these suits. The state appeals, and roughly a decade after the suit is filed, the court’s initial decision is upheld and the A.C.L.U. is victorious.

As I report in my paper, these lawsuits have a large impact on the prison populations in the affected states. After the suits are filed, but before any court decisions are handed down, prison populations grow more slowly in the litigation states.

The preliminary court decision doesn’t have much of an effect. But when the final verdict is handed down, prison populations shrink by about 15 percent relative to the rest of the country over the next three years.

Yesterday, a prisoners’ rights group won a preliminary decision against the state of California’s prison system. Consistent with my earlier results, the lawsuit already seems to have had some impact on California’s prison population. For instance, in 2007 California’s prison population shrank by about 1 percent, whereas the overall U.S. prison population grew by nearly 2 percent. It will take a few years before a final court decision is handed down, but the likely outcome is that five or six years from now there will be 25,000 fewer inmates than there otherwise would have been.

What does this mean for crime? If my estimates are correct, ultimately violent crime will be roughly 6 percent higher in California than it would have been absent the lawsuit. That is roughly 150 extra homicides a year, 500 additional rapes, and 4,500 more robberies.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/prison/

[patrik]

I always reply in the same way "it works for me mate".

Well, you would say that, wouldnt you Argon?

After all you suck off the public teat working as a psychologist in prisons, dont you?

[Argonheart_Po]

Patrik - Tell me, do you think racists like yourself should be in prison?

[foolsprogress]

If it's rehabilitation you're after, then no it doesn't.

It never occurred to me that prison might be exclusively or even primarily about rehab. I thought it was about punishment and removiing the offender from society for a while. (Actually mostly about punishment.) Rehab was an afterthought. And. though not intentional, prison is also a training ground for further criminal activity. Does anybody think it is exclusively about rehab? Gotta link?

1) People likely to re-offend

That's about 80-90% of them.

Not according to govt stats which places the recidivism rates at 50%-60% in the US and UK. Maybe things are worse there down under. Gotta link?

[Herc]

The problem is it’s not really much of a punishment for the most violent, psychotic and organised criminals – the ones who I would say most deserved punishment.

It’s a far greater punishment for the vulnerable, stupid and dispossessed - on whom the former are largely encouraged to prey.

[foolsprogress]

I think you will find most people of any category who are in prison would, given a choice, choose freedom over prison. It is a punishment.

[Herc]

Well yes, of course it is. It is however a greater punishment for small-time petty criminals than vicious, violent criminals.

Not saying I've got a better alternative, mind.

[thoughtpolice]

I think you will find most people of any category who are in prison would, given a choice, choose freedom over prison. It is a punishment.

Being sent to prison is in itself the punishment, I see no point in continuing the punishment once they arrive.
The primary purpose of a jail sentence is to priotect people from criminals.
Punishment as such should never be an objective. Rehab is for those who choose it, so it is not a state objective but a personal objective.

[eric84]

Well, eventually, most prisoners get out and it would be in the state's interest as well as prisoner's interest to be ready for that eventuality. US states are now beginning to see the virtues of increased rehabilitation and alternatives to prisons given they can no longer can afford locking people up any more.....3 strikes and your out was sort of the pinnacle of an unsustainable prison system that CA can't afford.

[flojin]

There are two fundamentally opposed views of the purpose of prison.

The old testament: retribution, punishment, banishment.

The new testament: forgiveness, charity, love

These are mutually exclusive concepts. Either we should punish evildoers, or we should forgive them. I'm not taking a side in this, I honestly don't have an answer. I know what Jesus taught, but I'm not a Christian. But I am baffled by those who opts for the first choice and calls themselves Christians though.

[Godjira]

Well, the Old Testament has a wider point of view than that. I really don't think that there is anything Jesus says that doesn't have its roots in Jesus's own reading or interpretation of the Old Testament, even when it contradicts.

And, there is plenty of punishment in the New Testament. I don't think we even see much about Hell in the Old, but it's pretty well defined in the New.

[foolsprogress]

Flo - Those do not seem to be characterizations of OT and NT versions of the purpose of prison but of the nature of Justice.

[janieblack]

It's not just a Christian thang... it relates to broader notions of moral philosophy that underpin religion and other moral expressions (like our legal systems, governance, etc.).

Punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive concepts, either.

[2wilzgood]

The problem is it’s not really much of a punishment for the most violent, psychotic and organised criminals – the ones who I would say most deserved punishment.

It’s a far greater punishment for the vulnerable, stupid and dispossessed - on whom the former are largely encouraged to prey.

How many different types of criminals are there?

I had a difficult conversation today with my girlfriend regarding domestic violence. She seemed to believe that losing your temper might be followed by losing control and then the almost inevitable assault/battery follows, and that that can be a result of mitigating factors. I was astounded because of her history of suffering abuse. I explained that battering people is never mitigatable (made up word). That men (or women) who batter need to be incarcerated. What I didn't have the opportunity to say to her is that my opinion is that if a man repeatedly batters their spouse/s, then he should be incarcerated repeatedly and very much long enough until he is too decrepit and destroyed by prison life to ever again get close enough to any woman to batter her.

I don't know whether men who beat women are vulnerable, stupid and dispossessed or if they are violent, psychotic and organised, but they belong in the same circle of hell that child abusers deserve.

I don't care much either way if prison punishes or rehabilitates a wife beater. Just that he be stopped. Women and children first. Like the life boats.



mitigatable = mitigable, just subtract the T and A! That's how exciting my life is at the moment.

[Argonheart_Po]

Well, what a lot of middle class wank until we get to this statement:

I explained that battering people is never mitigatable (made up word). That men (or women) who batter need to be incarcerated. What I didn't have the opportunity to say to her is that my opinion is that if a man repeatedly batters their spouse/s, then he should be incarcerated repeatedly and very much long enough until he is too decrepit and destroyed by prison life to ever again get close enough to any woman to batter her.

I don't know whether men who beat women are vulnerable, stupid and dispossessed or if they are violent, psychotic and organised, but they belong in the same circle of hell that child abusers deserve.

I don't care much either way if prison punishes or rehabilitates a wife beater. Just that he be stopped.

On the nail.

[janieblack]

I think many people agree about violent offenders and prison. The real trouble is with weedy dudes who steal VCRs or stupid chicks caught with pot... I find it hard to get in a righteous froth about how they should never see the light of day. How they need to be Punished and how I couldn't give two shits if they ever Change. I do care if they change and would hope that their first involvement with "the system" would have some mechanism for diverting them away from prison life.

[Argonheart_Po]

I do care if they change and would hope that their first involvement with "the system" would have some mechanism for diverting them away from prison life.

That's just mental and emotional laziness, you get your smug gratifying glow of self regard without offering anything at all. Further, it's just wishful thinking - you wish that here was some better way of dealing with criminals, therefore there is, and must be such a method.

Unless you'd care to suggets one, I can only put your comment down to your desire to appear, to yourself and others more compassionate than you really are.

[janieblack]

I am currently working with DoJ who have a whole host of projects aimed at diversion and rehabilitation on the boil. If anyone is lazy, it is you Argon. I am sure you know about things like restorative justice, in-prison counseling, mediation, sentencing circles, community orders, etcetera etcetera etcetera. If not, use your google finger.

[Tomska]

Prison works for some offences. For violent offenders, absolutely. It's punishment, and to that extent it works. However I can't for the life of me see the point in locking people up for cannabis offences. That would seem to criminalise a section of society that needn't be criminalised. The criminal records they get will make it less likely that they will become productive members of society, and putting them in the prison environment makes it more likely that they will come out and commit crimes they might not have even considered before their sentence.

[flojin]

Another issue is that by the time someone belongs in prison, there have already been many failures. I don't doubt that some folks are simply born bad. But why, for example, does the US have so many murderers and criminals? Of course people are responsible for their actions and should be held accountable, but aren't we also failing in some way as a society when we have so many violent offenders?

[brettyb]

Of course, those who are locked up in prison generally are far less capable of committing crimes than those who are not incarcerated. In that sense it works. However, it is a very expensive fix, and it seems to be an inadequate deterrent to recidivism. While the increased incarceration rate has certainly played a prime role in decreasing US crime rates, I'd prefer to see a multi-pronged approach that would be more cost effective, and effective:

1. Corporal punishment in lieu of incarceration for many non-violent offenses. The prospect of being waterboarded would be a strong deterrent to, say, graffiti vandals.
2. Decriminalization of some offenses, such as drug possession and prostitution.
3. Castration for sex offenders.
4. Sterilization for those whose crime is abuse of their own children.
5. Greatly increased use of the death penalty, especially for repeat offenders. Something like three strikes and you're REALLY out.

[Argonheart_Po]

janie - I asked you for a better way. Get to know a prisoner or repeat criminal - ask him about these schemes. You'll find that the majority think they are ridiculous and will have no problem thinking the same about you if they sniff out the fact that you think these programs are somehow worthy.

I don't doubt that some folks are simply born bad

I agree. Their upbringing makes them bad - to be more specific, their parents deform them and destroy them as surely as a slave master in Calcutta who bends the bones of babies or blinds infants.

But why, for example, does the US have so many murderers and criminals?

Murderers? Access to guns that's why. Criminal? Almost accross the board US crime rates are below those of other anglo-western nations. Why? Because they lock more people up and at an earlier stage.

but aren't we also failing in some way as a society when we have so many violent offenders?

Yes! It's a theme I return to over and over here. We allow people to live wretched half lives on passive welfare. By doing so we deny them the basics of humanity - learning through struggle, achieving through hard work and effort. We have distorted the fabric of human society- one at the heart of every culture for 5,000 years.

We have been left with several generations of stupid, infant adults who do not know how to live like human beings. They can't cook, they can't work, they can't raise children properly, they don't want to be educated - and their shallow. stupid, ridiculous, pathetic lives are paid for by someone else.

[CatScanMan]

I'm shocked that y'all not shocked you have an ex- convict in your midst.

Wankers.

Argonheart thinks the ice caps are getting are getting icier by the year. He knows jack.

PUI, vino.

[guruwil]

There is no doubt that it is better to invest in ensuring That people don't don to prison both by breaking the social cycles that lead many in that direction and also by finding alternative punishments which do not involve prison because most come out worse than when they went in. The majority of low level crime particularly low-level drug possession crime should never involve jail.

However for violent criminals and repeat offenders there is a need tom get them off the street, and also a valid need for victims to see justice being done, these need to go to jail. Now some of them need to go to jail for life, and for them there is no real point in investing in rehabilitation, however for those who are going to end up back on the streets, we need to throw everything we have at rehabilitation because the cost of not doing so is very high.

[janieblack]

janie - I asked you for a better way. Get to know a prisoner or repeat criminal - ask him about these schemes. You'll find that the majority think they are ridiculous and will have no problem thinking the same about you if they sniff out the fact that you think these programs are somehow worthy.

Why are you bickering with me for no reason? I already allowed as prison was an appropriate place for violent offenders. And I'll add that 'soft' options like community orders are not the go for consistent recidivists. But the notion of punishment as a sole rationale for prison for many prisoners is a pretty blunt tool and I would like to see diversion programs applied where they can work (especially for non-violent offenders, first time offenders). And they do work for some prisoners, despite your own emotive position that prisoners are all just human wreckage. This is not true universally.

Again, punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive concepts and using the hardest end of the prison population as an excuse for not trying diversion programs is a far more emotional lazy response than mine.

[purplegemini]

Having worked in a local remand Cat B prison for over two years, and within the criminal justice system as a whole for around 4, on the whole I'd say it depends. I have seen the revolving door syndrome so much so, that i used to joke to some of the prisoners that they should have their own allocated cell. I believe that prisons could have the opportunity to work if pointless sentences of less than 6 months (i.e. 3 months in reality) are scrapped and instead prisoners have access to labour, training and education.

I've watched prison programmes being scrapped one by one as a result of inadequate funding, and mix this with the increasing overcrowding, and you have a recipe for disaster. Anger management (absolutely essential skill I believe) groups, drug and alcohol focussed programmes have all stopped to the detriment of the prisoners. The only programmes that are available are available to people serving longer sentences (like the Psychology department's cognitive based 'Enhanced Thinking Skills' Programme. This means that the lower level thieves and drug addicts will never get the opportunity to do them and learn something.

Re the overcrowding, the prison I worked in was only meant for a capacity of 400, but routinely has over 600 prisoners within the walls and has to lock new remand prisoners out regularly- sending them to other parts of the UK away where they will not get local support set up as easily for release. This environment is just not going to help rehabilitate offenders, as the prison officers are so stretched in resources they end up locking the prison down (no labour or education and prisoners behind cell doors) on a regular basis.

Resettlement is another biggie. The resettlement teams do not work with remand prisoners as they are so understaffed and unable to deal with the huge burden of homelessness that goes hand in hand with repeat offenders. The remand prisoners can spend months on remand, get a sentence of a few months- but most of the sentence will have already have been served on remand, so off out they go after two weeks of an actual sentence, without resettlement having been able to get along to say so much as 'hello' to them. Beneficial outcomes and reduction in reoffending are more likely when someone has a stable and secure place to live. Most repeat offenders will be living in squats and dodgy B&B's etc.

The dawn of Indefinite Public Protection orders had promise as offenders who burgled dwellings would receive an indefinite sentence with a Tariff attached- basically they'd be in prison until they reached certain points in their rehabilitation and proved themselves. This sentence TERRIFIED most offenders and I know so many of them who stopped this type of crime through the fear of getting an IPP. The problems happened when the prisons were too overcrowded to assist in a prisoner on an IPP moving through the prison system- from a CAT B, to C to a training prison, 12 steps prison etc. Lots of prisoners ended up reaching their tarrifs and not having been able to do any of the courses etc that were deemed to be appropriate by the courts before they could be released. These prisoners were left in a CAT A/B prison indefinitely, which was causing serious turbulance within the system and the fear of riots was very prevalent. I remember the anxiety of the officers and hostile, aggressive feeling when moving around the Wings. I thought we could end up seeing the scale of the Strangeways riots and beyond all over again. I haven't seen IPP's being used recently.

If I could have the opportunity to make changes I'd insist that more money is pumped into prisons and longer sentences imposed, so prisoners had to do education and training, rehabilitation programmes etc. It's disgusting how many prisoners don't have basic reading and writing skills, for example. I'd extend their licence requirements on release, so they have at least 6 months to a year supervised care in the community on release. I'd extend community sentences as the Prolific and Priority Scheme is a success and has resulted in the most prolific offenders reducing their reoffending dramatically. This is already in the pipeline with the extension of the Integrated Offender Management schemes after successful pilots throughout the UK. The success is due to the acknowledgement that there are different avenues that need to be addressed to reduce reoffending- namely employment, education, housing, health, drugs/alcohol etc.

[purplegemini]

3. Castration for sex offenders.

Absolutely pointless. You won't reduce their assaults.

[Lavite]

A prison sentence is pointless if they do not serve their time, every year, month, week, and hour of it. The objective of prison is to punish the offender and to a certain degree protect society from the scum of humanity. Three Strikes works in that regard.

[thoughtpolice]

I am currently working with DoJ who have a whole host of projects aimed at diversion and rehabilitation on the boil.

It is govt, it's what they do. The outcome is not the point with bureaucracies, they need something to justify their existence. Hiring consultants need have no purpose other than to reinforce their sense of self worth.
But I imagine you already knew that, hard as it is to acknowledge your complicity.

[RichD]

I would make Purple Minister of Justice.

I am currently working with DoJ who have a whole host of projects aimed at diversion and rehabilitation on the boil.

It is govt, it's what they do. The outcome is not the point with bureaucracies, they need something to justify their existence. Hiring consultants need have no purpose other than to reinforce their sense of self worth.
But I imagine you already knew that, hard as it is to acknowledge your complicity.

A whole host of projects is the problem with government bureaucracy, as TP points out, the outcome is not important, its having projects. Why not select 2 or 3 max and point all resources towards making these successful. And no consultants, just plan, implement, monitor, recalibrate, review against agreed measurable targets then scrap or continue based on achieving targets.

[janieblack]

That's what they are doing. They are piloting one neighbourhood justice centre that houses the bulk of restorative justice initiatives. They have just evaluated the first 2 (maybe 3?) years and will go from there. Many of the initiatives are aimed at young offenders and are aimed at diverting them away from the system. Of course there are prisoners for whom this type of program won't work. But there are prisoners for whom it will work too and I, personally (and as a citizen and tax payer) am happy to know that some teeny part of criminal justice funds are being applied to trying to 'fix' offenders rather than simply locking them up and shrugging our shoulders about the human detritus...

[janieblack]

Should add too that restorative justice is about the victims too and many of the ideas mentioned above are as much about providing a better resolution to victims of crimes as about providing alternatives for offenders. Things like victim/offender mediation and restitution are being pretty well received by many victims of crime (sex offences being the one area where this is not being trialed).

[Argonheart_Po]

Janie - in reality those programs only work if you pretend they work. They pick winners to begin with. How could they not? They are staffed by 23 year olds fresh out of university who are afraid of their clients.

It's alsmot all all middle class wank - designed to make people like you feel better - with no long term effect on any difficult clients.

I'll give you an example - I know a young woman - whom I like very much. However, she has 240+ prior convictions. About 60 of those are for burglary, and about 40 relate to violence. The majoity are lesser property crimes. Some are for drug dealing.

Guess how many days she has spent in prison?

None. Not a single day.

She of course thinks this is hilarious ("those suckers"), every court case she organises a battery of social workers and other 'professionals', usually including her community corrections workers. She is of course adept at manipulating well meaning and worthy people, and they plead on her behalf, each of them believing that they are clever enough to help her. She is not unique, this kind of case is common place.

Meanwhile literally hundreds of people have been victimised by her.

Another example, in 2008 there were 197 appeals against a sentence of imprisonment in Victoria.

Guess how many people ended up going to prison?

One.

It's hilarious. You have to be incredibly bad, or incredibly stupid to go to prison.

shrugging our shoulders about the human detritus

How about changing the conditions that create the wretched failures of the underclass?

But that would be an admission that well meaning left wing policies have been a total fucking disaster and crippled the lives of millions, wouldn't it?

[janieblack]

Sorry, but your thesis is crap, Argon. If "well meaning left wing policies" were destroying humanity, as you assert, then we'd see a vast increase in crime rates (nope), huge increases in welfare (nope), increased death rates from violence (nope) and a host of other ills (nope).

What evidence actually suggests is that we're travelling as well or better as we ever have in the past.

People are people. There are some dregs and they should be punished for their dreggish behaviours, on this we agree. But you start with nonsense like 90% of offenders reoffend (nope) and expand upon it based on your observations dealing with the dregs to the entire human condition and to the evil Liberals and it is just sad nonsense.

You sound all the world like the other archetype in 'welfare'... the cynical burnout who thinks there is nothing redeeming about people and that is as one-eyed as the starry eyed 23 year old archetype you mention (who are not the ones working in restorative justice, btw...). Neither archetype is achieving much of substance or is actually interested in a suitable spectrum of interventions from punishment to rehabilitation that will achieve the various needs that victims and offenders have.

[purplegemini]

Restorative justice is an interesting one. I've seen it being advertsied in my prison as a scheme, but all the guys who I worked with who wanted to do it, IMO, were looking for a lenient sentence, so were completely inappropriate. I think one of the biggest problems is how can you ask someone to show remorse when they have no empathy? i worked with a guy who's family were part of a big drug gang and his life revolved around violence from birth, so when trying to talk to him about his offences (aggravated burglary), he couldn't possibly understand. He made all the right noises, but for him he admitted, using a gun to wake someone up and take their belongings was for him the most effective way to get what he wanted. He didn't 'get' the trauma aspect as it was normal life for him.

I appreciate that the candidates would have to be chosen very strictly. I saw a programme once where ex paramilitary members had to come face to face with the loved one of one of their victims and it actually worked really well. The victim's family got to say their piece and came away from the process feeling better- but the incidents took place a long time ago. I can imagine it could get really messy with a particularly raw wound.

Here's an evaluation of a pilot restorative caution in the UK:

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/evaluation-implementation-and-effectiveness-initiative-restorative-cautioning

Something that's used here a lot now is conditional cautioning for drug offences (and now for alcohol offences). If someone is eligible and they admit their offences (offences like burglary and drink driving are not included in this scheme), they will not go to court if they take part in whatever the police require them to do. This may be to get into treatment and attend all appointments, work with other agencies etc. If they don't, they go straight to court.

[polardude1]

appreciate that the candidates would have to be chosen very strictly. I saw a programme once where ex paramilitary members had to come face to face with the loved one of one of their victims and it actually worked really well. The victim's family got to say their piece and came away from the process feeling better- but the incidents took place a long time ago. I can imagine it could get really messy with a particularly raw wound.

sometimes during a murder trial in the US you can hear the can hear the offender make an apology to the victims family, but it depends on the nature of the the murder, There was one terribly disturbing incident in the murder trial for a young child gunned down in the cross fire during a gang turf war, After the defendant was convicted, he stood up in the court room and cursed the parents of the victim, Juts as bad, his friend shouted their love for the defendant from the gallery. The defendant has no remorse for his crime and definitely would not have been a good candidate for this program.

People are people. There are some dregs and they should be punished for their dreggish behaviours, on this we agree. But you start with nonsense like 90% of offenders reoffend (nope) and expand upon it based on your observations dealing with the dregs to the entire human condition and to the evil Liberals and it is just sad nonsense.

Janie, I have no idea what the percentage is, but there are a hell of a lot of violent criminals who are-offenders out there, especially those who were involved in gang activity.

[janieblack]

I have no idea what the percentage is

It's not 90%.

As for gang members and murder, well, once again... I have NO issue with prison for violent offenders. But I see no reason why this whole question is couched in either/or terms. here is room for prison to be both a place for punishment and for rehabilitation, particularly for the non-violent offenders.

[purplegemini]

Some interesting stats from the Prison Reform Trust website:

48% of prisoners are at or below the level expected of an 11 year old in reading, 82% in writing

Half of all prisoners do not have the skills required by 96% of jobs

68.6% of all children aged under 18 discharged from prison in 2004 were reconvicted within 1 year

75% of young men (18-20) are reconvicted within two years of being released

67.4% of all prisoners re-offend within two years of release

Over half of the women in prison have suffered domestic abuse, 1 in 3 sexual abuse

72% of male and 70% of female sentenced prisoners suffer from two or more mental health disorders

Of prisoners aged 16-20, around 85% show signs of a personality disorder, 10% of a psychotic illness

[Argonheart_Po]

then we'd see a vast increase in crime rates (nope), huge increases in welfare (nope), increased death rates from violence (nope) and a host of other ills (nope).

Since the advent of the welfare state we have seen all of those.

It beggars belief that you could possibly be so ignorant. If you don't know the basics then what do you know?

but all the guys who I worked with who wanted to do it, IMO, were looking for a lenient sentence, so were completely inappropriate

Yup.

Look, these schemes aren't for criminals or for helping society, they are for people like janie to feel better about themselves.

[janieblack]

Since the advent of the welfare state we have seen all of those.

Absolute twaddle. 2010 in Australia or Canada or the UK is more violent than 19th century Europe... or modern day Africa. You're an idiot.

[UrbanII]

It's hilarious. You have to be incredibly bad, or incredibly stupid to go to prison.

You're simply an idiot.
http://www.economist.com/node/16636027