No smoking prison sparks drop in crime

is it fair for staff in prisons to not be protected like any other worker under the smoking regulations?? well its because the government dont have the balls to turn round to a bunch of fag puffing cons and say you cant smoke. Everyday I am exposed to passive smoking because my employer is exempted from the smoking ban, but the staff are not allowed to smoke inside the prison and have to go out the front at lunch time etc. Its a ******* joke.


Oh and if a con breaks their TV by throwing at an officer etc, they will get loss of tv for 14 days and after that the prison at the cost to the taxpayer will get them a new one, which they dont contribute to
 
Thundycat said:
But prison is not about luxuries is it?

Prison is punishment is it not, It should be 4 walls and a door imo not "Richard and Judy eveyday and sewing club at 2:)

TC
Click to expand...

Prison is about a variety of purposes, often conflicting, including public protection, punishment, rehabilitation and so on.

The issue comes in working out what the public want, what is cost effective and so on.

Are our prisons supposed to be places where we reform where possible (rehabilitation)? If so, you have to cut down on the 'punishment' portion, because these two conflict.

If you don't care about rehabilitation, then you can up the punishment, but this will likely result in higher recidivism rates and therefore increases the need to keep people locked away longer for public protection.

There are also issues about how we treat those leaving prison, and those at risk of being drawn into criminal behaviour that could be addressed in better ways in order to reduce the prison population, but the requirements tend to be unpopular with the public.

Personally, I'd prefer a prison system that tries to rehabilitate where possible to one that punishes, because it is likely to work out cheaper in the long run. What is the right approach? If we knew that we'd be able to make a fortune :)
 
Thundycat said:
Why is it they have TV's etc in there cell's? It is almost like a cheap travel lodge in there.

Hardly punishment.

TC
Click to expand...


Yeah man, being in prison is absolutely no issue because you have a TV. It completely negates all the other things - You know, like not having any freedom.

:rolleyes:

Sheltered moron.
 
Chimerical said:
To stop rioting, unless you want to make the life of prison wardens even harder.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but we shouldn't be pandering to inmate protests. They're in there for a reason and so it should be up to prison authorities what luxuries they get.

AcidHell2 said:
That shouldn't be it's main aim.

It's main aim should be protecting the public, closely followed by rehabilitation. I also think such things should be removed but for slightly different reasons. It should be a place to work hard and get education or training if you wish and if you don't want to do that a decent 8+ hour day doing work. Maybe it would get them use to it for when they leave.
Click to expand...

Rehabilitation, public protection and punishment are all required for prison. Whether in equal amounts is up for discussion but if you ignore any one you're looking for issues.
 
MotherMayI said:
Yeah man, being in prison is absolutely no issue because you have a TV. It completely negates all the other things - You know, like not having any freedom.

:rolleyes:

Sheltered moron.
Click to expand...

I saw what you originally typed while i respect your opinions i suggest you stop with the insults.

Tefal said:
Fine.

Sol are you willing to pay more tax to fund this?
Click to expand...

Depends how much? But I would happy to pay more.

TC
 
Tummy: Possibly because he doesn't do it daily?;)


With regards to the actual topic, prisons are there (as has been mentioned) to protect the public, and rehabilitate the prisoners as well as punish them.
Things like TV's aren't from what I understand there for every prisoner, but are a privildge they can get for good behaviour (as well as other things), and can be a strong incentive for them to behave and follow the rules whilst inside.
While that may sound daft, it does something fairly important, in that it encourages them to do things like take part in courses, and reduces the number of staff required to deal with them (it costs a relatively huge amount to lock someone up, even in a basic cell, that cost rises if you need larger numbers of staff at all times, or they have no incentive not to keep rioting)..

As for harsher sentences, that's never actually proven to work whilst the actual detection and (successful) prosecution rate of crimes is low*, you're much better off putting the money into actual policing so you catch the criminals in the first place, as once they know they are more likely to be caught they are much less likely to commit the crimes in the first place (it's also better "value" to get drug addicts off the drugs, so they don't commit crimes to pay for the drugs - sure lock them up, but the added cost of a proper attempt to get them off the drugs is worth it).

It would also require a huge amount of new prisons, with all the staffing costs required to go with that if you just make sentences harsher and harsher without doing anything to try and prevent re-offending, or offending in the first place, other than longer sentences.


*Going back a few hundred years to when stealing a loaf of bread could get you hung, that still didn't stop people stealing.
 
Tbh Thundercat, I edited my post because I had no interest in getting involved in a flame war with you. I do however stand by my opinion. By all means tell me if Im wrong, but I bet you have absolutely no experience with police or the prison system, and I think if you did you would change your stance quite drastically.
 
Werewolf said:
Tummy: Possibly because he doesn't do it daily?;)


With regards to the actual topic, prisons are there (as has been mentioned) to protect the public, and rehabilitate the prisoners as well as punish them.
Things like TV's aren't from what I understand there for every prisoner, but are a privildge they can get for good behaviour (as well as other things), and can be a strong incentive for them to behave and follow the rules whilst inside.
While that may sound daft, it does something fairly important, in that it encourages them to do things like take part in courses, and reduces the number of staff required to deal with them (it costs a relatively huge amount to lock someone up, even in a basic cell, that cost rises if you need larger numbers of staff at all times, or they have no incentive not to keep rioting)..

As for harsher sentences, that's never actually proven to work whilst the actual detection and (successful) prosecution rate of crimes is low*, you're much better off putting the money into actual policing so you catch the criminals in the first place, as once they know they are more likely to be caught they are much less likely to commit the crimes in the first place (it's also better "value" to get drug addicts off the drugs, so they don't commit crimes to pay for the drugs - sure lock them up, but the added cost of a proper attempt to get them off the drugs is worth it).

It would also require a huge amount of new prisons, with all the staffing costs required to go with that if you just make sentences harsher and harsher without doing anything to try and prevent re-offending, or offending in the first place, other than longer sentences.


*Going back a few hundred years to when stealing a loaf of bread could get you hung, that still didn't stop people stealing.
Click to expand...

every prisoner has a TV at standard incentive level, only if they misbehave they lose it when they go onto basic level, any new prisoner to the system starts at standard level, so has a TV
 
MotherMayI said:
Tbh Thundercat, I edited my post because I had no interest in getting involved in a flame war with you. I do however stand by my opinion. By all means tell me if Im wrong, but I bet you have absolutely no experience with police or the prison system, and I think if you did you would change your stance quite drastically.
Click to expand...

Thundycat thankyou;)

I'm not saying you are wrong just voicing my opinion.:)

TC
 
Tefal said:
Fine.

Sol are you willing to pay more tax to fund this?
Click to expand...

If it helps reoffending rates, then yes.

MotherMayI said:
Tbh Thundercat, I edited my post because I had no interest in getting involved in a flame war with you. I do however stand by my opinion. By all means tell me if Im wrong, but I bet you have absolutely no experience with police or the prison system, and I think if you did you would change your stance quite drastically.
Click to expand...

I do have experience and I think the same. Too many criminals aren't fussed about being locked up, especially serial offenders or career criminals.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Rehabilitation, public protection and punishment are all required for prison. Whether in equal amounts is up for discussion but if you ignore any one you're looking for issues.
Click to expand...

IMO the main two should be public protection and rehabilitation.

I would love to see stricter prisons. Not just a removal of luxuries. But far less movement and cells that are bare and designed for prison. To make concealment and passing of goods around almost imposable.

Everyone should work, in chain gangs if they are known to cause trouble. Either useful work, or just digging a hole and filling it back up if they are going to cause problems.

There should be a much heavier presence of education. Depending how long your sentence is, depends what education you can do, anything from 2 day computer courses to a PHD and everything in between. Instead of working say 50hours a week, you do 25hrs of each. But optional and you only stay on it if you provide the grades. That way when they come out they are much more likely to get a job rather than going back to crime.

But for such a system I also think the sentencing would need to be realigned.
With criminals being sentenced to 24/48 hours in prison from a much earlier age and for lesser crimes as well as in the first few convictions. A much more aggressive approach and multiple convictions.

Of course such a system would cost more. The prisons themselves and education would cost far more. However I think you would get less crime and less re-offenders so longterm who knows.
 
for those jailed for the 1st/2nd time i'd certainly give them an easier time in jail but constant re-offenders should get a pretty basic standard of living in prison.
 
No, not at all. However, I do think that people who have experienced nothing of the penal system would change their tune quite drastically if they spent even a couple of nights inside. Im by no means saying that UK prisons are draconian hell holes, theyre not - And nor should they be imo, but they are a far cry from the holiday camps some people here have been lead to believe.
 
MotherMayI said:
No, not at all. However, I do think that people who have experienced nothing of the penal system would change their tune quite drastically if they spent even a couple of nights inside. Im by no means saying that UK prisons are draconian hell holes, theyre not - And nor should they be imo, but they are a far cry from the holiday camps some people here have been lead to believe.
Click to expand...

Prisons in this country are far too easy.

Have you expirenced the penal system?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom