A new initiative is being launched today called Prison Works. Its website is HERE. Its aim is to counter the leftist position taken up by the Howard League for Penal Reform. Prison Works is dedicated to analysing what's wrong with the prison system and how it can be improved to be an effective tool against crime.
I have fairly radical views about prison, probably not all of which Prison Works would endorse. I think we should radically reappraise who we send to prison. It seems to me that we should concentrate our efforts on imprisoning those who are a danger to society and to individuals. We should be looking to find other ways of punishing those who are not violent. Prison must still be the ultimate deterrent but I see absolutely no point in sending someone to prison for some crimes when a substantial financial penalty, imposing a curfew and/or lengthy community service would be far more effective - and less costly to the taxpayer. This would then mean that we have more prison places available for those who should be serving lengthy sentences.
Discuss. Calmly, please.
72 comments:
I've never understood the "Prison doesn't work" argument. Universally they ignore one function of the penal system, which is perhaps it's most important - to protect the public from dangerous and dishonest people.
I agree.
"A comparative study of UK and US crime rates between 1981 and 1996 showed that in the US, as the risk of imprisonment rose, the rate of crime fell. Conversely, as the risk of prison receded in the UK, the crime rate rose. The conclusive evidence may not impress the modern ideological social reformer. But the facts do seem, shall we say, inescapable."
TCS Daily
Aaaaarrgh! Australian one-day cricket-strip-urine yellow. I'll say it again -- different shades of blue are OK, but not Australian one-day cricket-strip-urine yellow. Sort it out, man!
We also need to reappraise whom we punish at all. If we're not going to punish people who smoke pot, I can see no value in punishing those who make or sell it. Same with other drugs that mellow you out (as opposed to those like meth or crack that make you manic).
"A comparative study of UK and US crime rates between 1981 and 1996 showed that in the US, as the risk of imprisonment rose, the rate of crime fell. Conversely, as the risk of prison receded in the UK, the crime rate rose. The conclusive evidence may not impress the modern ideological social reformer. But the facts do seem, shall we say, inescapable."
TCS Daily
I agree in priciple with your comments Iain - but say for example with shoplifting the threat of a fine has no effect. If a persistent shoplifter works out that they get caught say once in 100 times they steal, and they steal say something 20 pounds in value, they know that for them to get arrested they will on average have acquired 2 grands worth of items/products. Would a 60 pound fine deter them? No.
They may not be a danger to people, but its a huge issue.
Iain, you're absolutely right. Many people who are sent to prison for relatively minor crimes gain absolutely nothing from it in terms of rehabilitation. For example, a lot of these people lack reading and writing skills. These can be taught within prisons, but not if the inmate only stays there for a month or less.
Sending non-violent criminals to prison is a lazy option by the state - it's the state saying, 'these people are a problem, but we have no idea what to do with them so we'll just bang them up for a month'. We need a much more sophisticated approach towards combating crime - otherwise the two-thirds reoffending rate will not come down.
This, I take it, will be known as The Michael Howard League for Penal Reform.
In reply to Jonathan Sheppard, the problem is, I think, that you can't really sentence people for what you think they might have done but you didn't catch them doing; in the real world, the persistent low-value shoplifter is almost certainly going to be doing it to fund a drugs habit and a Drugs Treatment and Testing Order will probably do more -- not that either are likely to do anything very much in most cases, unfortunately -- to change his behaviour than will prison.
Just for reference, the Sentencing Council's guidelines on shoplifting are available at their website.
Iain, good discussion.
Should we ask the insurance companies to get onto this? I'm sure their stats show the requirement to keep thieves locked up.
Police response to burglary is usually hopeless, so, after we are given a crime number, we get a small pile of dosh and - well - that's about it. Oh yes, I forgot, we get a phonecall from someone at Social Hurt People Outreach Council Department to see how we're getting on.
Bang 'em up I say - bollocks to the softies. I want burglars to share a cell with a psychopath and a white van man.
In less squeamish and self-doubting times we dealt with certain misdemeanors by corporal punishment and we had the capital penalty for very serious crimes. (This was so seldom used that it's reasonable to assume it worked as a deterrent.) Any prison sentences ordered were much shorter than today. The prisons are full because we have no other penalty available and people do not respect the authority of the modern state because it is not founded on morality, but expediency. There has been an obfuscation of what ought to be castigated as criminal because it is wrong and what results in criminal proceedings by the modern state because it is ideologically unacceptable. So long as we are ruled by people whose purpose is to enforce a set of 'isms the ordinary man will continue to have no respect for 'authority' and the prisons will get fuller. If we had the courage properly to punish wickedness rather than behaviour unacceptable to the state, the people would begin to respect authority again (because it was genuinely worthy of respect) and the prisons would gradually empty.
(We are so feeble (or irresponsible) that we allow murderers such as Dr Shipman to do away with themselves and do the job for us - Iain Huntley has tried twice and voices are now saying prisoners should be given the right to kill themselves.) Until we confront this and sort it out the problem will only get worse.
Oh agree with your comments about the low value shoplifter - but what I am saying is that fines which are inevitably hardly ever paid deter nother - so the message that is given is shoplifting and indeed other crimes are fine - its open season, as their is no mechanism that acts to deter people.
I'm amazed. I absolutely agree with you here.
Thanks for the plug Iain. And to a certain extent, I agree with you. Sometimes it is more suitable to fine than lock up - Jeffry Archer being an example. Slap a £2m fine on him, coupled with the embarrasment from the trial, would have been punishment enough.
But, for the vaste majority of criminals, I believe that prison is the best way of stopping them from doing crime.
Small time misdemeanours? Fines, curfews, meaningful community work projects, weekend prison. Sanctions that only go away when they have knuckled down and met some additional skills/literacy/numeracy threshhold that would assist in becoming a functioning (tax-paying) member of society.
I'd have a more relaxed view on the drugs laws - punish those who steal to fund their habit, who drive under the influence etc - but otherwise for social users (who must buy through Govt. licenced chemists) - let employers undertake random drugs tests to police the negative impact of drugs.
That would leave the police with the time and resources to go for the real scourge. Those who inflict physical or psychological violence on others - people for whom I favour long, long terms in deep, dark dungeons. My normal libertarian take on life goes out the window when it comes to violent crime.
And there'd be none of this having to save up their medication for a (usually futile) attempt to take their own life. I'd have a cyanide capsule displayed prominently in a neon-lit glass case. Right there, night and day. You want out? Feel free....
Oh, and maybe random destabilising acts of violence inflicted on them. Just so they know how it feels for the rest of us. Then let's see how many Bulgarian and Romanian criminals still want to settle here...and how many of our home-grown crims suddenly want to look for work abroad.
But my real wrath would be reserved for those Prime Ministers who take our poorly-equipped service men and women into illegal, unwinnable wars. And the spineless Chancellors who fund them but otherwise stay silent... For them, I would really get medieval on their asses...
I suspect the number of people in jail who have the resources to pay a real fine is pretty small. I would, however, endorse Jeffrey Archer's position that most people there have few skills, down to & including reading, & that jails do far less than they could to fix this. I would make time off for good behaviour dependent on real progress here.
Who, if trained as a plumber, could afford to give it up for burglary?
Beyond that I am afraid we must just bite the bullet of more jails.
Prison, at the moment is a holiday camp. televisions,video's and games in the cells, hot regular meals and warm cells to boot, plus all the drugs one may require!
Whilst I am not advocating a return to the prisons of old. I believe that, at present, and under the social workers running the prison service these days, that little, if any, rehabilitation is achieved.
We must return to having prisons which are harsh, yet do offer meaningful rehabilitation.I believe that former Armed Service Personnel should be brought in to run prisons which maximum discipline and with no tolerance to any prisoner.
Only then, when prisons will work, can you then discuss who not to send to prison.
I am, however, intriuged by iain saying there are some non violent casses which should not have custodial sentences!
I have arrested many housebreakers who never used violence, yet those victims, whose home
they burgled, considered the entry almost akin to a rape! Believe you me when you have dealt with many victims of a housebreaker you are aware of the effect that entry has had.
Likewise, shoplifting! I was, last year in Hartlepool and went into a small shop to get some toothpaste. I searched the shelves and when I could not find it asked the assistant. She told me that because of so many shoplifters taking small items, such as toothpaste and soap etc. to sell in the streets for money to buy drugs,they kept such articles behind the till!
What appears minor to you, Iain, could be major to the victim. Surely we should initiate laws that demand that the victim be part of the decision making on sentencing. We have gone far to far the other way with so many Prisoner support bodies (ALL financed by the Home Office!) and only one for the Victims!
Every crime, even non payment of council tax by the elderly, although emotive, could lead to a breakdown if the sentence is ridiculously small.
Far too much nonsense is printed these days. We have a justice system that cares more for the criminal classes than the law abiding and it is time politicians (including you iain), looked at ways of keeping law breakers out of circulation.
Prisons work when they remove the criminals from their workplace!!!
Bang 'em up I say - bollocks to the softies. I want burglars to share a cell with a psychopath and a white van man.
Which would be an excellent way of either a)killing him or b)teaching him how to use violence to defend himself. So either a)loss of burglar or b) net gain 100% extra psychos.
Which means, if you look at it logically, you eventually turn all the petty criminals into violent ones. Same principle applies in every other crime sector. So what you are proposing is that we turn all minor criminals into major ones or corpses. And the corpses whittle down the population, yes, but in a darwinian nmanner. The ones who survive are the most proficient at violence and crime. And I'm not sure that's the idea of a criminal justice system.
Yep, Prison works...when your aim is to create more criminals.
I, for one, am rather fed up of being labelled 'soft' when my only crime is having a brain and using it. I don't like crime any more than anyone else. Bollocks to the irritating pseudo-macho idiots who would, given the option, hit petty thieves with a big stick* purely as compensation for being hard of thinking and having a rather small willy.
*and then justify it by saying 'ah, it's a deterrent, it works'. Nope, you fffool, it doesn't. Studied crime figures both historically and internationally have we? Studied some criminology? Please tell me you have...oh.
As an experienced magistrate my view is that prison is the only way to deal with those who persistently commit crime. For instance those who drive whilst disqualified are warned when they are disqualified that they face prison for defiance of a court order if the drive whilst disqualified.
The starting point for committing domestic burglary is, in the Magistrates sentencing guide, a term of imprisonment. Theft whilst in a position of trust (for instance school bursar, supermarket cashier etc) usually results in a prison term.
People who breach community punishment orders also face the revocation of their sentence and it is usually replaced by a prison sentence.
Bail jumpers are also given prison sentences.
Imprisonment, except in very, serious cases, comes for non-violent offenders, after a long series of non-custodial sentences. Restricting imprisonment to those who commit violence would lead, in my view, to an increase, in crime by persistent offenders. The statistics show that recidivism is higher amongst those who have never served a term imprisonment than those who have.
In a BBC2 ( I think) series called "The Best Public Services in the World" it cited the Danish prison system as the best. It was fascinating. The prisons there are more like self-catering holiday chalets than correctional institutions. Men and women are allowed to co-habit and their children run up and down corridors off which lie the rooms of hardened drug addicts and criminals. They buy and prepare their own food and there is even a Spar supermarket on site!
By all accounts it works splendidly, with re-offending rates in Denmark, the lowest in Europe.
There were some mutterings though, about how the recent influx of immigrants was undermining the system and causing it to break down.
The system we have already would work if everyone did their own job properly.
Imprisonment is seldom the right punishment for crime, but for burglary it is. The only way to stop young men doing this is to lock them up until they are too old to want to. I suggest an appropriate tarrif is 2 years for the first offence, 5 for the second and until the age of 50 for the third. Alternatively they should be sentenced for every ofence they are responsible for, the sentences to run consecutively.
There are several reasons for sending people to prison: deterrence, punishment, reform; but the only one that definitely works is confinement to stop reoffending. Imprisoning a single burglar in an area usually has a huge impact because one man is usually responsible for a large number of crimes.
Discuss calmly? Discuss calmly? ARE YOU MAD? Britain is probably the most lawless country in the world. It is certainly the most lawless country in the First World and you want to twiddle the knobs to fine tune punishment for people who "wouldn't benefit from prison"?
Frankly, I don't care what they benefit from because they knew they were committing a criminal offence when they did it. I am only interested in benefits to society. I don't do anything for the benefit of criminals; we lock them up to separate them from a society they have just demonstrated they are not capable of living among. We lock them up because they have offended the citizenry by hostility to the law which everyone else abides by.
Screw their rehabilitation. If they re-offend, bang them up again. I'm not a social worker (social workers should go to prison, by the way) and have zero interest in criminals' wellbeing or their prospects for future happiness.
Prison works because it exiles the criminals from the society they've offended for their own purposes, and we are better off without their presence among us. If you want to lessen prison sentences, bring back corporal punishment - preferably in public to give the citizenry a bit of a laugh.
Persistent shoplifters, which I think would probably not be a problem if they were punished properly in the first place, should have an S tattooed on their foreheads. (It should be the absolutely right of shopkeepers to refuse this person admittance to their premises.) I'm sure it's not beyond the skills of science to make this tattoo slowly disappear over the course of, say, 18 months or however long the judge deems necessary.
I will share a secret with you: I have no interest in rehabilitation. The ones who should be thinking of rehabilitation are the offenders who are being punished again and again. Not society.
The murder rate in Britain is horrifying. People who take a life should pay with their own. I wouldn't be vengeful. Lethal injection would be fine. Just as long as they're dead. I might give some thought to executing them in public. On a gurney outside the prison gates. This tends to bring it home to the like-minded. Terrible cruelty to children and very old people should also attract the death penalty.
Prison works. The death penalty works. We need more.
But, for the vaste majority of criminals, I believe that prison is the best way of stopping them from doing crime.
How? It doesn't stop them breaking the law while they're in prison (drug taking is rife) and it doesn't stop people re-offending when they get out.
It does take them off the streets for a period of time which is why it is valuable for those who are genuinely a danger to society.
But the costs of keeping people locked up are monumental, which is why Labour coming around to new prison building is just wrong!
I agree with Iain. I think the Lib Dems would too! I think community service is a valuable way of punishing people cheaply and with a direct return for society.
However, I do think it's a shame that community service should actually be a punishment, rather than something we all do routinely for the greater good. Then again, I haven't been litter picking for years.
You guys are all looking at the small picture. Big picture the prison service is in absolute disarray and as the Home Office budget has been frozen little is being done to tackle.
Abolitionists such as Mark Leech author of The Prisoners Handbook and Frances Crook (see her call to abolish womens' prisons) get Lottery funding and unfettered access to the secret world of prisons - I bet PrisonWorks won't.
I would go as far as to say that UK prisons are run for their clients and employees more than for society at large. To redress the balance is a serious and critical issue. Arguing about whether a shoplifter goes to jail or not is like discussing the fleas on a dangerous rottweiler.
The trouble with prison is that it doesn't work! But that doesn't mean we should stop using prisons, but rather, that we should MAKE PRISON WORK!
Prison isn't just about punishment, it is about warning others, bringing justice to the victim of crime, and taking the criminal out of society for a while.
But, prison should also act as an opportunity for the criminal to reform himself, and not just hone his criminal skills so he doesn't get caught next time.
I am of the opinion that the vast majority of crime in the UK is caused by a small number of people, mostly 'well known' to Yates of the Yard.
The trouble is the police have stopped being a 'force' and are now a 'service' instead. They no longer exist to catch and inprison criminals, but instead spend too much time enforceing 'values', and stupid PC laws (like the one in the Mail on Sunday today where a preacher was arrested and prosecuted for handing out 'what the bible says about gay sex' leaflets at a Mardi Gras gay rally becuase the police 'felt' someone was 'likely to be offended', despite the fact that no-one had actually complained - I bet if it had been a muslim cleric handing out 'what the Koran says about gay sex', then nothing would have happened).
The police are now effectively simply a 'service' which mediates between the majority of the law abiding and the minority criminal class. This is because, for some stupid reason, we persist in allowing us to be brainwashed into thinking that 'criminals are still the real victim'. This is only true in a few cases. The vast majority of crinimals are crinimals through volition and choice, and because they are too lazy to better their life through legal means.
Prison does need reforming. THe right's 'lock em up and throw away the key' is outdated and just doesn't fit today's needs anymore. The left's 'Prison is pointless' is also wrong and outdated.
As long as there is crime, there will always be a need for prison. But a prison sentence should be far more 'tailored' to the individual criminal and his particular 'needs' - i.e. what is needed to reform and imrpove the criminal! Therefore, sentencing power needs to rest with judges and not politicians!
I also think, by the way, that there should be the right for people to 'take the law into their own hands' by being able to defend their property as well as their life. This is just one of a whole package of things which needs addressing to ensure that the balance is shifted back in favour of the vast majority of the law abiding!
I don't really know whether prison works or not; however, it seems to me that criminals should be put to use. Whether in prison or out of it they should be doing community service and lots of it.
Is there any way that local councils can save money buy using prisoners to do some of the basic labour? Perhaps they could scrub hospital wards or be taught how to repair pot-holes?
I agree, Iain. Prison does work but the fact of the matter isn't that we are sending too many people to prison but rather we are sending too many of the wrong sort of offender.
I would think that many in the legal profession, the police and in the prison service would agree with you as well.
Prison is not only about deterrent & safety to society, of course. One must remember that it should be both punitive and rehabilitative as well. How would your system seek to rehabilitate offenders? It ticks the box of being punitive (i.e. one has broken the law and must be held accountable for their wrong-doin); of being a deterrent and of being protective. I'm not sure how someone who does community service, pays a fine etc is being rehabilitated... or would you argue that they do not need to be?
RS
Iain.
All you have said on the subject is common sense. I think most people would agree with you.
It is quite simple to me.
So why do we not do it ???
Criminals should be made to pay restitution to the victim (whenever possible) plus the costs of their arrest and trial.
I agree with Walling.
Give em a damn good thrashing!
In public and preferably in front of the shop or house they were caught nicking from.
Repeat offenders get extra whacks.
Iain, how do you define non violent? If you are mugged but give up your property without getting cut or hit is it a non violent crime? I would argue that burglary has an element of violence. It was a very distressing experience for me.
Also,
John Wilkes said...
For example, a lot of these people lack reading and writing skills. These can be taught within prisons, but not if the inmate only stays there for a month or less.
This is would be true but for the culture against learning that exists in prisons. I spent a day in a young offenders prison thinking to go there as a teacher. Most of the lads had maths and english skills no better than an 11 year old, but what struck me most was that they just weren't bothered. They ignored the teachers that I shadowed and the teachers had no sanctions to make the young men work.
In my view, we need preventative help at school and home for potential offenders and then serious, unpleasant punishments for those who choose to offend.
I concur "calmly" !
Deterrence comes from the probability of being caught, not the likely punishment when you are caught. So the difference between a small fine and boiling in oil is secondary to the deterrent effect of a 99% certainty of being caught.
Iain, could you or someone else please define unambiguously your comment "danger to society". In my view it goes a long way beyond violent offenders, but it seems rather grey where it actually stops. For instance a heroin dealer is not specifically violent, be even softies like you would agree they should be locked away.
The conundrum is that, whilst it pisses off the great majority of people that petty criminals are not harshly dealt with (including me, a firm adherent to Rudi Guiliani's Broken Windows policy), the sheer incompetence of the Prison Service results in billions of pounds being poured into a drain in order to incarcerate these felons.
How can porridge cost five times more than full boarding at Eton? Those who felt it their duty to resuscitate Huntly last week are quoted in today's papers as saying that it will cost between £300,000 and £500,000 each year to have him on 24 hour suicide watch.
This is cloud-cuckoo land. No wonder we don't build new prisons if the cost implications are so huge.
The answer, it seems to me, is to stop selling off army barracks and to turn them into low-security prisons, and to staff them with teachers as well as guards. Negligible comforts, but lots of stick and carrot. Those who don't play ball can be promoted to a harsher regime.
The long liberal experiment with sentencing and prison life can end in two ways:
1. A reduction in offending, re-offending, and successful rehabilitation. There is NO evidence of this yet.
2. A total breakdown in trust between law enforcement institutions and the public, who are so badly let down.
Populist policies are mostly bad, but in this area are moral and just.
I rather agree with you Iain but I would very much like to see a three strikes and you're out system, coupled with far superior educational opportunities within prisons. Those not prepared to make the best of these facilities to improve themselves and their relationship with society would be largely putting two fingers up to the system. If such a person were to be imprisoned for a third time, then it would not be unreasonable for society to consider incarcerating them for significant period, simply for the protection of everybody else.
Prison does work in some cases (I speak from experience) However, I think that i many cases corporal punishment would be far more effective and in the long run more humane and cost effective.
Far too many prisoners actually enjoy being in prison, which probably say a lot about how shit their lives on the outside must be.
Of course prison works, if you take the view that it is there to separate the criminal from society for the length of the sentence. At one time prison was regarded as a punishment, but, since the Bleeding hearts brigade got involved, it is only for re-habilitation now. I could not give a Toss whether the offenders are re-habilitated or not. The fear of the punishment should be enough to deter. If the punishment does not deter, the offender, if found guilty of the crime deserves locking up.
Prisons should be run with basic but humane facilities and regimes and certian provisions of the criminal's human rights should be suspended whilst in prison, as part of the punishment. The offender should also expect to serve a good portion of the sentence.
If, more prisons are required, they should be provided. Let's not forget that the population of this country is rising, at an alarming rate and even with the present prison system, prison places should have been increased accordingly.
Lastly I would also like to see hanging brought back, for the more serious cases. I accept the arguements, that occasionaly, an inocent person may get hung (I might even be that inoccent person and would kick and scream as much as anybody). I do believe that this is the sacrifice that society should accept to ensure that we are rid of a great deal of evil in our society. As before, if the punishment of hanging doesn't deter the murderer, Tough. As Julius Caesar once said, in a judgment he made, "In this life we only have the law, justice, is to be had in the next". For me this quote says it all.
If there are any mathematicians out there, I would be interested to know, how long it would take, for the verification letter's at the bottom of the blog sites, to appear in the following order:-
GORDON IS A MORON
Iain I've had 2 conversations about community service in the past year, one in the UK one in the US, both guys got caught driving super-cars very fast (150+ mph).
In the US it's taken very seriously. The guy had 1000+ hours of community service, he had to wear an orange jump-suit in his home town. There were very rude men with big muscle and guns, and a clip round the ear with a big stick if you cheek'ed them.
In the UK this guys friend was given 100+ hours for the same speed, in a different town (in case he got seen) wearing casual clothes, he turned up 6 times nobody did any work - they all called the offices w*nkers and they never got asked back.
Iain if you need to make a distinction between prison and punishment - this is it.
The public would support you if the UK wasn't so politically correct - but it isn't and they wont. Your punishment won't wok until the UK starts to work.
Iain - thank you once again for the plug. You alone accounted for nearly 1/3 of the traffic today (and it isn't over yet) - by far the largest slice of the cake. I must say, the launch has been a success - and I am grateful for your large contribution to it.
This issue is one that has no easy answers, the point made by Phillip Warring about corpral punnishment is a valid one.
many years ago an uncle of mine was birched, he will say quite clearly that it was something that he would never wish to repeat.
How many shoplifters or muggers would say the same thing about prison.
Birch the lot I say and start with the politicaly correct crowd that will start the screams about how it would infirnge on the criminals rights.
Failing that start american style chain gangs, that will stop the need for cheap labour from eastern europe, so we can legitamately close the borders.
Two birds and two issues with one stone.
I was listening to a programme on the BBC just a few days ago about the prison system in Norway. They imprison certain inmates on an island somewhere in Norwegian waters and they are treated in a completely positive way, working at different tasks/procedures and the idea is that they come out of there with a completely different attitude. Beats being "banged up" in a cell for most of the day. How fruitless.
I'm more right wing than you can possibly imagine – no, no, really: I’m a fully paid up member of the nuke Mecca, shutdown the welfare state, leave the EU, kill the Irish terrorists, re-arm England now etc... I’m really, really right wing…
… But I have worked with offenders and the prison system. Prison does NOT f**king work. At all. The prison service is more criminal that the prisoners. Ok, ok, lock up forever or kill the really bad guys (I favour locking them up since, as usual, the state makes of stupid mistakes). Think of something else for the druggies, thieves, whores, benefit fraudsters and so on. Tattoo on the forehead - not allowed in shops - cut of finger - implant rifid – not allowed a telly - something (anything!) else.
Don’t believe me – go and find out the facts, it’s not that prison doesn't work, it actually make things much, much worse. What do you think actually happens to some petty thief who goes down for 3 months. House, job, wife and kids gone. Yeah, he was a smack head – but you know, that’s just not helping stop crime. Trust me it’s making it much /so much/ worse. What's more, making prisons "work" by making it more dreadful - hard labour or institutionalised gang rape or whatever is both stupid and/or immoral.
Since I'm on a (drunken) roll I also need to point out that fines are even worse than prison in terms of their ineffectiveness / making the problem even worse. The right really need to look hard at this issue and get passed the vengeance/ wickedness stuff.
There are lots of interesting ideas on this thread. What nobody else seems to have pointed out is that sentencing policy is decided centrally.
I think we need to decentralise sentencing to local government so that different approaches can be tried. The impact of pro-criminal organisations like the Howard League would be lessened and we would have a chance to see what really works.
Personally I'm with the floggers, although Stephen Pollard's idea of bringing back the stocks has a certain charm to it as well.
strap I agree
they need some self respect beaten into them
Andrew said: "Andrew said...
I don't really know whether prison works or not; however, it seems to me that criminals should be put to use." Yes, Andrew. In the US, they're called "chain gangs". Chain gangs work on two levels: 1st, of course, the road, or whatever, gets built. Second, after a day's extremely hard labour, the prisoners are easier to control when they are taken back to prison at night.
The breakdown of law in Britain is due to Blair's thought fascism (aka "political correctness") and his determination to destroy our civil society. That means, nothing will improve until he is ejected - preferably over a large ocean without a parachute.
The concern must be first and foremost for society, not the prisoner. Society is being protected against him. It is paramount not to become confused about this.
Corporal punishment works very well in Singapore. "Strokes of the rotan" are intentionally designed to strike abject fear in the criminal's heart. For those who don't know, the rotan is a ong, thick bamboo cane.
The prisoner is tied to a frame and the rotan is wielded with great force. It is so painful and dangerous that the prisoner's kidneys are protected with special padding. Usually, the prisoner cannot walk unaided after he's received his strokes. (If memory serves, anything after six strokes is deferred until the prisoner heals. Most prisoners cannot take more than six strokes at a time.)
After they've experienced the rotan, a life of crime loses its allure.
Corporal punishment works. So does the death penalty.
Terry Hamblin - I have argued for the method you mention for years. Most crime is committed by young men. First sentence: A year (no reduction in time for good behaviour; a year to mean a year). If he reoffends, that means he's a slow learner. The sentence for the second offence: three years. Third offence, banged up until their 40th birthday. (You say 50th, but by their 40th birthday, their old mates will have moved away or be married with families. His old contacts won't active by age 40.)
This is all about us, not the predators.
It is an obscenity that the citizenry in Britain has no right to be armed. Part of Tony and Cherie's plan to demoralise and infantalise Britain.
The police "service" no longer serves. The ethos has been corrupted by socialist "thinking". I would dismantle the whole thing and start again.
I agree that prisons should be managed by retired military. In a jam, who would you rather see running to help you - a military man or a social worker?
Bishop Hill - you say you are in favour of the stocks. Flogging and the stocks are not mutually exclusive because they are nowhere close in terms of severity of punishment.
Shoplifters, nuisances like teens on estates, shoplifters, scrotes in general would benefit from a day in the stocks being utterly humiliated and not getting any respec'. Society would benefit from their photographs in the stocks being featured in local papers - not least because being in such a humiliating position tends to take the wind out of the sails of stupid young men.
Housebreakers and similar, the rotan. I guarantee they will not re-offend. Nothing is worth that much pain, and it takes a long, long time to heal. Weeks of not being able to sit down. Not being able to sleep on your back. Not being able to walk without pain.
Murder, horrible cruelty to a child or an old person: Death. Bye bye. This is natural justice.
I remember once on a radio show in Texas, some git was arguing against capital punishment (in a state that is wedded to it in thought and deed), his argument being, we ask officials to do a job (executing killers) that we wouldn't do ourselves. He opined, if you asked for volunteers to administer the lethal injection, to actually take the life of a fellow citizen in cold blood, you wouldn't get any.
A lot of listeners didn't hear the whole thing and thought that the apologist for criminals was actually an official of the Texas justice system and was asking for volunteers to administer the death penalty and the switchboard was jammed. They told us later that around 50% of the callers were women.
One pair of facts that always confuses me a bit -- but I'm sure people who beleive 'prison works' will be able to resolve my difficulties -- is that we imprison far more people than do most other EU countries and we also have a similar, or even higher, crime rate.
Why is this, I wonder; how do the regimes in our prisons compare with those in France or Germany, for example? Or are we Brits just naturally more criminally inclined than some other people?
Ian Huntley has tried to kill himself twice and failed both times. Which considering he managed to kill those two little girls, one almost by accident, shows that he's clealry got worse at the old death game. So prison works.
Verity
Yes, my original comment was carelessly phrased. I hadn't intended to imply that we would have either stocks or flogging, but that both would have their place.
Chris Dillow did a good piece on corporal punishment in June. His point that corporal punishment is no less liberal than imprisonment was an interesting one.
Notsaussure said:
"Why is this, I wonder; how do the regimes in our prisons compare with those in France or Germany, for example? Or are we Brits just naturally more criminally inclined than some other people?"
The answer is in this piece by Jamie Whyte in the Times.
[C]ontrary to popular belief, Britain has [...]a low rate of imprisonment. Admittedly Britain imprisons a higher percentage of its population than any other Western European country. But this is a misleading measure, since it takes no account of the portion of the population who commit crimes. Allow for the extraordinary criminality of the British, and Britain has a low imprisonment rate. Whereas Britain imprisons 12 people per 1,000 crimes, Spain imprisons 48 and Ireland 33.
Bishop Hill - Yes, thanks for that. Indeed, he is correct. Flogging or the stocks is no more illiberal than trying to alter someone's personality with drugs or brainwashing by prison psychiatrists.
He asks whether all the evidence in favour of corporal and capital punishment will be ignored because "only modern methods will work".
Well, "only modern methods will work" is certainly a phrase of such stupidity that it is not hard to hear Blair, in one's mind's ear, mouthing it. But that is not the reason the evidence will be ignored. The evidence will be ignored because Blair does not want to control crime in Britain.
People are more frightened and obedient and look more to the government for solutions when crime is out of control. That is the reason nothing will be done. Control of the population.
As I am probably the only person on this blog who has actually been in prison (as a prisoner)I can speak with some authority, yes it does work for those who have something to come out to, a family , a career to resume, however, for many it is nothing more than an inconvenience and in many cases a welcome break.That is why I am in favour of corporal punishment.
And if anybody is wondering , I am not a thief, nor a sex fiend.
Call me old fashion, call me a crank but I think a week locked up in some stocks would teach most minor criminals to behave.
I read the comments on this thread with utter horror. I have been in prison, as a prisoner. Three quarters of the men I spoke to were mentally ill and could not in all reason be held accountable for their actions. To imprison them is completely barbaric; to treat them as some of your commenters are suggesting is beyond barbarism. Iain, please make a clear statement that you distinguish between wickedness and illness.
anonymous - if they're ill, they should be treated on the NHS - free, at the taxpayers' expense although they don't contribute, of course - and not be in prison.
Frankly, at the risk of starting a row, I don't believe you. What crimes did these "mentally ill" people commit. Breaking into people's homes? Stealing cars? Shoplifting? What crimes did they commit and to what end?
With the vast army of social workers and welfare workers and criminal aid workers and God knows what else, I simply do not believe that Britain is overrun with criminals, as indeed it is, and only the mentally ill are incarcerated.
Second point: What would you propose? They committed crimes because they were "mentally ill", so let them go back and commit more because it wasn't their fault?
Sorry, we need some realism around here. The people pay taxes to be safe - quite a laugh, but there you are - and free from assault. That is the stark reality and that is the bargain that Blair has reneged upon to suit his own purposes, which is, "a lawless society is a society that works for me".
The safety and wellbeing of the contributors to any society must come first.
anon 11.27
bullshit
3/4 are not mentally ill, they are mostly just stupid and/or a little f****** up, nothing a job and some self respect wouldnt sort out.
I also dont believe you have ever been in prison
(not that I take any pride in the fact I have )
Iain, You are right in many ways here.
Let us get to the fundamentals though.
The Criminal Justice system which includes prison is there to:
1. Deter
2. Punish
3. Rehabilitate.
The deterance value whilst important is only relevant if you have a cat in hells chance of capturing the person who commited the crime. I have a catalogue of crime in my area most serious (That is attracting a maximum sentence of over 5 years) that has been so poorly investigated that it makes you wonder what the Police are doing.
Punishment is obvious.
Rehabilitation is only possible if there is the space to do it.
Criminality costs money. Getting people to stop it saves money.
If we knew the solution, there wouldn't be a problem. No easy fix here...
There is a lot of great background material to this question on the Civitas website. It's well worth a read.
One of their central arguments is that the vast majority of crimes are committed by the same people (the average convicted criminal has an impressive track record of 137 crimes per year and the average drug-using criminal has 256 crimes per annum to his name). Lock them up and crime plummets.
Surely we should adopt the principle that everyone makes mistakes (leniency for first-time offenders) but if you keep repeating them, then expect to be treated harshly.
Lock them up until they can pass a media studies course, then send them to work on the Guardian. It will raise the quality of the journalism no end.
casual observer - oh! boo hoo! You missed the point of the entire thread! People who commit crimes have to be punished largely. This government lacks the will - or the intention for its own purposes - to do it.
Prisoners are failed criminals ...
... criminality is a difficult Profession because you need to outwit the criminal service professionals to stay in the job.
Criminals must understand there are easier professions to go into, when they go into prison they must be reminded at every possible moment they are failed criminals and could achive better things doing a less demanding and more ethical job.
In an ideal world your idea might work. Unfortunately, as can be seen by current "alternatives", the schemes just do not provide an adequate deterrent because they are not monitored or implemented effectively. Furthermore, what deterrent is prison when murderers can get less of a sentence than fraudsters and the sentences they do get are a joke.
The claim that prison does not reduce the rate of reoffending is a classic case of misunderstanding the nature of statistical comparisons. In order to make any claim about reoffending rates post-prison, one would need to compare ex-prisoners with a group of individuals who are matched for all the supposed confounders such as age, socio-economic profile, criminal history and the extent to which they are exposed to opportunities to commit crime. By analysing reoffending in thsi way, one can get a true picture of whether prison reduces reoffending. The media (mostly) manages to understand these types of analysis in drug trials, so why not in this area too?
Bonbono I would certainly like to see the experiment in feeding prisoners vitamins repeated. I would not like to see it adopted wholesale on one result. the problem is that it is very easy, even with pure intentions, to come up with "evidence" that something works (tagging, parole, the ineffectiveness of the death penalty, its effectivenss & conjugal visits have all been "proved" once to work).
Perhaps we should have a genuinely independent body, run by a mathematician with no penal experience running double blind tests (this is what they do with medicines). he might come up with some unlikely & some politically incorrect answers but they would be rigorous.
Of course prison works, if it is a deterent. The problem is that prison is today no longer a deterent; the emphasis is on rehab. Prisoners have little of a deterent in a system which puts their WELFARE before any other consideration. Make it hard, though not brutal, make them PAY for their food and accomodation by working for it.
Did you know that soldiers have to pay their food and accomodation?
The US system of 'hard labour' is to my mind what should be enacted here; make them work for their food accomodation and priveledges. If they don't want to work, or refuse, then they get the bare minimum to survive and the minimum of physical exercise and attention; before anyone says that is cruel and brutal...well they have a choice. In the US some prisons actually pay for themselves and make a profit for the state.
As to petty criminals, make them work too and cut their benefits. I also see corporal punishment as a real deterent. Give some 17 year old little shite a few lashes and they won't be hungry for more; think that is barbaric? Tell how outraged you ar to the old dear who has been mugged for the fifth time while collecting her pittance of a pension by the same little shite that was caught doing it last time.
The problem is the political will of the lightweights who look to small lobbying groups first, instead of what the majority wants.
Bishop Hill - I pointed out that exact point! Sentencing needs to be done on an individual basis, as every situation is different!
There's also the incontrovertible fact that Blair and his cohorts cater to young malfeasants - to encourage the breakdown of society by taking away the respect the young in any society give to older people.
This encourages them into criminal behaviour with a sense of entitlement. Two days ago there was the case, on an estate (they need to raze these places) where a couple of little slags and their friends were using obscenities to neighbours every time they stepped out of their doors, especially if they complained about the noise these children were making.
One woman had had enough, and swore at these feral children. The little 13 year-old girl hied herself off to the police and filed a complaint about "insulting behaviour". The police, who had ignored calls from the adults, were round in a trice and the result was, this woman was required to pay an £86 fine.
Being of sane mind, she refused, whereon the (magistrate? - can't remember) raised the fine to £129 and gave her a few days in prison - which is beyond shocking.
So we all know who is the boss of that sink estate. This is the intentional dismantling of society that blair has been engaged in for the last nine years. Including relentless "sex education", abortions for 12 yr olds without their mother's knowledge, etc.
Is it any surprise that these young scrotes go in for a life of crime, having been given a sense of entitlement for their entire lives?
Meanwhile, Tony travels, Soviet-style - in a phalanx of armed cars, well protected from what he has created.
Bishop Hill, thanks for the reference to The Times piece. I wasn't aware of it. I'd be very interested, though, to see how Jamie Whyte arrives at his figures; for example, it's unclear whether the figure of people imprisoned per thousand crimes is per thousand crimes reported or per thousand crimes where an arrest is made or per thousand crimes where a conviction is secured.
I'm not disputing his figures; it's just that crime figures are notoriously difficult to interpret and, before forming any conclusion, I'd very much like to see what these figures actually represent.
Post a Comment