Reoffending rates - perhaps the spinless left were right after all...

[Hatter The Mad]

I totally agree with this as a preventative measure, however from a rehabilitation point of view I'm not convinced. I'm open to studies though, and as mentioned above I'd be very interested to read a comprehensive study carried out in the UK on the subject of rehabilitation.

You're clearly not open to studies, as they are ten a penny and you seem to have dodged them all. You also successfully made you prejudices clear in your opening post...

Reoffending rates - perhaps the spinless left were right after all...
.... or perhaps not

Stand by for a torrent of soppy whiny nonsense from butt hurt lefties in 3....2....1.......

...as well as looking like a ***.

 

[elmarko]

Unfortunately - very few governments seem that interested in running (what some would consider controversial) studies on various social phenomenon - which the aim to resolve social problems.

Think of it like this,

Say do crime X & get sent to prison for 3 years.

Scenario A - You do hard time, harsh conditions - you leave a hardened man - with no education, no employment prospects & have learned nothing.

When you leave you have nothing to lose.

Scenario B - You do a softer sentence, but one which emphases learning a new trade/skill - to teach them to be a productive part of society instead of a member who will do nothing but damage it.

After leaving you get put into work, using the skills you have learned - you have something tangible to lose if you commit another crime.

Who do you think is more likely to end up back inside?.

 

[hurfdurf]

You're clearly not open to studies, as they are ten a penny and you seem to have dodged them all. You also successfully made you prejudices clear in your opening post...




...as well as looking like a ***.

This.

 

[MissChief]

IMO there should be 'stages' of Prison. if you commit a relatively 'non serious' crime such as petty theft then you go to relatively normal prison, but for the last week you go to a prison where things are much worse. no TV, no newspapers, where prison life is HARD. Sof the Human Rights, Someone who violates someone elses Human Rights shouldn't be entitled to say they're own rights are being violated. ANyway, show the person doing the first crime, this is where they'll end up if they offend again. Should they offend again, send them here. But again, for the last week, have them in an even tougher prison. Forced manual labour, no visits, deinfitely no TV, newspapers, etc. Then show them again, this is where you'll end up if you offend again. Prison should be HARD for re-offenders. Prison should be something that no one wants to end up in, especially the third or fourth time.

 

[elmarko]

IMO there should be 'stages' of Prison. if you commit a relatively 'non serious' crime such as petty theft then you go to relatively normal prison, but for the last week you go to a prison where things are much worse. no TV, no newspapers, where prison life is HARD. Sof the Human Rights, Someone who violates someone elses Human Rights shouldn't be entitled to say they're own rights are being violated. ANyway, show the person doing the first crime, this is where they'll end up if they offend again. Should they offend again, send them here. But again, for the last week, have them in an even tougher prison. Forced manual labour, no visits, deinfitely no TV, newspapers, etc. Then show them again, this is where you'll end up if you offend again. Prison should be HARD for re-offenders. Prison should be something that no one wants to end up in, especially the third or fourth time.

It depends, do you want vengeance or less future victims?.

Have you read the many well expressed & evidenced backed arguments against this kind of idea? - this is the kind of argument from a position of emotion, not reason.

You need to move away from the "out-rage" & think of it logically & rationally.

While it may be nice to think of X amount of scumbags suffering - is it worth it if they go out & continue to murder/rape/assault people?.

Is the death of X amount of men/women & children worth the blood lust of a few morally outraged people?.

If we go with that kind of prison system - more people will get killed, raped & children molested.

That's not what I want & I've got a feeling it's not what you want either.

 

[MissChief]

It depends, do you want vengeance or less future victims?.

Have you read the many well expressed & evidenced backed arguments against this kind of idea? - this is the kind of argument from a position of emotion, not reason.

You need to move away from the "out-rage" & think of it logically & rationally.

While it may be nice to think of X amount of scumbags suffering - is it worth it if they go out & continue to murder/rape/assault people?.

Is the death of X amount of men/women & children worth the blood lust of a few morally outraged people?.

If we go with that kind of prison system - more people will get killed, raped & children molested.

That's not what I want & I've got a feeling it's not what you want either.

Why do you think this? The 'I'm going to prison anyway, i may as well make it worth going! effect?

 

[shoes]

Unfortunately - very few governments seem that interested in running (what some would consider controversial) studies on various social phenomenon - which the aim to resolve social problems.

Think of it like this,

Say do crime X & get sent to prison for 3 years.

Scenario A - You do hard time, harsh conditions - you leave a hardened man - with no education, no employment prospects & have learned nothing.

When you leave you have nothing to lose.

Scenario B - You do a softer sentence, but one which emphases learning a new trade/skill - to teach them to be a productive part of society instead of a member who will do nothing but damage it.

After leaving you get put into work, using the skills you have learned - you have something tangible to lose if you commit another crime.

Who do you think is more likely to end up back inside?.

The theory of scenario B is good, however I'd personally be more strict about it.

Force the inmate to learn the skill during their stay - and enforce it by any means necessary, including ignoring human rights if required.

Once they have gained the skills and some experience then they shall be released when, and only when - no exceptions, they have a job lined up to go into. This would require some very close work between the crown and employers though - some kind of deal would have to be worked out as it would be seen as a massive risk for employers.

Perhaps go even further - if you get fired, or you quit within 12 months then you go back into prison until you have another job, or you have learnt a new set of skills and have another job.

Expensive? Probably. But it will reduce the cost of keeping people on benefits upon release and hopefully the cost to society of re-offending.

I like the idea mentioned earlier in the thread of allowing most criminal records to be wiped clean upon the completion of sentence thus making it more likely the freed shall find employment.

If we are going to do all of then then we need to take a zero tolerance approach to re-offending - and I mean zero tolerance.

 

[elmarko]

Why do you think this? The 'I'm going to prison anyway, i may as well make it worth going! effect?

No, just that harsh prisons don't rehabilitate people.

Meaning that they have exactly the same problems they had when they first got into prison - meaning they are still dangerous.

Escalation theory does apply in some cases, but that's more for the death penalty.

All study's show that rehabilitation focused prison reduces the re-offender rates more than anything else.

Norway has a 20/30% re-offender rate, ours is close to 80%.

 

[doyll]

I feel the biggest problem is many people today do not think or feel they are responsible for, nor accountable for their own actions. That whatever they do wrong is "because" of what something or someone did or said.

How about instead of "Prison" we use "Forced Training Camps". If a person isn't functioning as a normal part of society and especially if they are hurting others physically, mentally or momentarily they are put into "Forced Training Camp" which operates similar military to basic training camps with a splash of Summer Camp thrown in for good behavior. In these camps they would be taught self respect, respect for other, that they will be held accountable for what they do, etc. There would be no time limits on how long they would have to stay in camp. They stay until it is agreed they will function normally in society.

 

[doyll]

No, just that harsh prisons don't rehabilitate people.

Meaning that they have exactly the same problems they had when they first got into prison - meaning they are still dangerous.

Escalation theory does apply in some cases, but that's more for the death penalty.

All study's show that rehabilitation focused prison reduces the re-offender rates more than anything else.

Norway has a 20/30% re-offender rate, ours is close to 80%.

All very true.

At present we only incarcerate, not rehabilitate. But the problem is far greater then trying to rehabilitate. Members of society have to be held accountable for their actions... executive or worker, clerk or accountant, street cleaner or MP, poor or rich. All have to be held accountable and all much perform and/or pay restitution applicable to their crime and position. No flat rate £100 fine for speeding 20mph over limit but £100 for £20000 income and £10000 £100000. Why more for £100000 income? Because it takes £20000 income to just live on... and not live all that well. Having to pay £100 fine is major expense. £100000 income is well above poverty with plenty of extra money, so make the fine as hard on them as it is on low income. (Figures are open to correction as needed)

 

[hurfdurf]

Indeed, equal justice for all regardless of net worth be it by hard work or more likely being born into privilege and having hereditary wealth that can buy you out of any form of actual punishment.

 

[elmarko]

Urgh... so frustrating to read this thread is.

We have a number of well informed posters who have done the legwork involved in obtained an informed rational opinion - then in walks "Mr I WANT THEM EXECUTED" - doing no legwork, spouting uninformed opinions thinking they have real weight.

It's pretty sad, threads like this are the reason I don't think Democracy can work - the general public lack the will or inclination to self educate of issues which they hold views on.

 

[doyll]

Urgh... so frustrating to read this thread is.

We have a number of well informed posters who have done the legwork involved in obtained an informed rational opinion - then in walks "Mr I WANT THEM EXECUTED" - doing no legwork, spouting uninformed opinions thinking they have real weight.

It's pretty sad, threads like this are the reason I don't think Democracy can work - the general public lack the will or inclination to self educate of issues which they hold views on.

Very true. Seems to have settled down for the moment.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Very true. Seems to have settled down for the moment.

Have you changed your opinion? You started here with very few criminals can be rehabilitated, you appear to be in favour of work camps here and I'm unsure whether you're pro or anti 3 strikes here but only because it might cost too much.

 

[doyll]

The way most countries deal with criminals very few criminals are rehabilitated.. I see a couple of glaring reasons: very little done to change their life style and their life style has been the same for too many years.

Pro 3 strikes but using training camps.

These camps might possible be complete communities and treat/educate/train parents too if they need it.

Of course who determines the treatment and who goes to these camps is another bag of worms.

 

[MissChief]

No, just that harsh prisons don't rehabilitate people.

Meaning that they have exactly the same problems they had when they first got into prison - meaning they are still dangerous.

Escalation theory does apply in some cases, but that's more for the death penalty.

All study's show that rehabilitation focused prison reduces the re-offender rates more than anything else.

Norway has a 20/30% re-offender rate, ours is close to 80%.

Great then, give them rehabilitation in the first prison before the last week. Give them a reason not to come back. The second time, by all means educate them again, but again, before the last week. The third time? **** 'em, what's happened before hasn't worked, they've lost any right to be educated or rehabilitated.

 

[elmarko]

Great then, give them rehabilitation in the first prison before the last week. Give them a reason not to come back. The second time, by all means educate them again, but again, before the last week. The third time? **** 'em, what's happened before hasn't worked, they've lost any right to be educated or rehabilitated.

We have yet to try the first time in the UK.

Our punishment system is very draconian compared to the rest of modern Europe, who enjoy lower murder/rape & crime rates & have a softer justice system.

I don't think we should be letting out people are still dangerous - that's a separate matter - but overall rehabilitation works, which if you want to live in a safer country should always be a priority.

If somebody just can't be rehabilitated after numerous attempts, then permanent incarceration should be considered (for a good of the population).

 

[shoes]

Off topic slightly, however, I'd be interested to see what people think of the following case. To me these people are all just plain evil, and rehabilitation and reduction of crime aside, would it be morally wrong to just condemn these people to a life of suffering and misery?

As far as I'm concerned they can all rot in a thai prison, although that'll never happen, sadly.

And whilst this is incredibly prejudiced, just look at the photos. How many of them do you suspect actually have a job?

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9772869.Middlesbrough_torture_victim_made_to_mop_up_own_blood/

 

[doyll]

I don't want people like that anywhere near me. In my estimation the risk to society outweighs the slim chance or rehab.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Off topic slightly, however, I'd be interested to see what people think of the following case. To me these people are all just plain evil, and rehabilitation and reduction of crime aside, would it be morally wrong to just condemn these people to a life of suffering and misery?

Morals are relative and it depends what you want from a justice system although there is an argument that if you're aiming punishments to fit the crime so literally then you're working down to the level of the criminals. To a certain extent I think a justice system should be expected to set an example rather than pursue an eye for an eye approach.

As far as I'm concerned they can all rot in a thai prison, although that'll never happen, sadly.

And whilst this is incredibly prejudiced, just look at the photos. How many of them do you suspect actually have a job?

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9772869.Middlesbrough_torture_victim_made_to_mop_up_own_blood/

I don't know how many of them had a job prior to the assault, I'd suspect none of them do now and whether they were employed or employable at one point it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. The attack sounds fairly horrific so I'd hope that while they are considered a danger to society they will not be let out.

However while as an individual crime it's terrible I'm not sure what you are seeking by highlighting it. Single instances of crime are generally a very poor basis for legislation.