Slashdot Mirror


UK Bans Sending Books To Prisoners

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes: "Alan Travis and Mark Tran report in The Guardian that new rules introduced by the justice secretary in the UK ban anyone sending in books to prisoners It's part of a new earned-incentives and privileges scheme, which allows better-behaved prisoners to get better access to funds to buy their own books. But members of Britain's literary establishment have combined to condemn Justice Secretary Chris Grayling's ban on sending books to prisoners. 'While we understand that prisons must be able to apply incentives to reward good behavior by prisoners, we do not believe that education and reading should be part of that policy,' says a letter signed by more than 80 leading authors. 'Books represent a lifeline behind bars, a way of nourishing the mind and filling the many hours that prisoners spend locked in their cells. In an environment with no internet access and only limited library facilities, books become all the more important.' Prime Minister David Cameron's official spokesman says the prime minister backs the ban on receiving books and entirely supports Grayling, whose department imposed the ban to preserve a rigid system of rewards and punishments for prisoners and said there was no need for prisoners to be sent books as prisoners could borrow from prison libraries and keep some reading material in their cells. However a former prisoner told the Guardian that although libraries existed, access could be severely restricted, particularly in closed prisons. 'I've been in places where prisoners only get 20 minutes a week to visit the library and change books.'"

220 comments

  1. Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Gothmolly · · Score: 0, Troll

    If you're in prison, that's it, you're in prison. But lets re-evaluate who goes to prison shall we? Imprisoning people doesn't seem to be helping with various societal and criminal issues.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, there is nothing reasonable about it. And, in the UK, as access to legal aid becomes severely reduced and private enterprises are being given contracts to cover all stages of the judicial process (from cop shop through prison management to probation), it's simply turning into a profit-making industry where everyone who lacks the money is milked.

      The only useful purpose of prison is to protect society from dangerous individuals while they are being rehabilitated. Denying access to books does not help with this.

    2. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're in prison, that's it, you're in prison.

      Who put you there? Why are you and all these other people in there? Are you going to end up coming back here again? Why didn't we just shoot you the moment the judge struck the gavel? Is a prison supposed to have more functions than appeasing Daily Mail readers with petty acts of vindictiveness?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Prison is also about rehabilitation, or at least it's meant to be.
      Whilst a bulky package does carry with it a certain amount of security risk, that's what the guard(s) screening the mail are meant to remove.

      This is purely another means of control over an individual which goes beyond what society should be expecting from the penal system.

      It serves very little real purpose other than proving a politician can and will do something silly if given half a chance.

    4. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and at a time when they're going on about

      "they" always go on about "massive amounts of drugs".

      And it's not "dead easy" to hide drugs in books if the books are searched and tested for residue, which they will be anyway.

      And, no, you can't send prisoners arbitrary amounts of money to buy anything they want. Clearly. Then a rich prisoner could have whatever they wanted.

      And prisoners do not need to be grateful for anything - especially not in a society which only provides access to justice to the rich, and which imprisons people for things like TV licence evasion.

      And punishing people for the sake of punishing them is pure, ineffective sadism.

      And digital copy? For the WiFi and laptops you think they get to use from their beds? Are you high?

      Finally, it's way more important for prisoners to be able to occupy their minds to their fullest extent than it is to stop them taking drugs. Although you might want to take a little less of what you are taking.

    5. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Criminal sentences have 3 objectives. Rehabilitation, retribution and deterrence.

      Both left and right agree on the importance of deterrence. But the right tend to believe that retribution is the second most important function. Whilst the left believe rehabilitation is.

    6. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Cryacin · · Score: 1
      This was covered by the sage of sages, Leslie Nielsen years ago!

      Hey! You call this slop? Real slop has got chunks of things in it! This is more like gruel! And this Château le Blanc '68 is supposed to be served slightly chilled! This is room temperature! What do you think we are? Animals?

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    7. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      There's a 4th, protecting society by removing dangerous individuals from society.

    8. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Criminal sentences have 3 objectives. Rehabilitation, retribution and deterrence.

      Both left and right agree on the importance of deterrence. But the right tend to believe that retribution is the second most important function. Whilst the left believe rehabilitation is.

      Unless you take some pleasure in punishing a person there is no retribution to be had from imprisoning. The criminal sentence used for retribution is to have the criminal pay for damages.
      The reason the right wants longer prison sentences is more related to deterrence and containment. (Keep them off the streets.)
      If we allow retribution to be a part of the sentence we have a problem since the victims will have vastly different ideas of what an appropriate sentence is. The punishment will then no longer be able to fit the crime, some victims will ask for execution while others will be able to forgive and forget.

    9. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judges in the UK don't use gavels.

    10. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It only sounds reasonable to people who consider themselves better than people who didn't have access to their opportunities and their choices.

      There must surely be a middle ground. Books could go to the library, earmarked for the person to whom they were sent to check them out first. That would benefit all of the prisoners. That would also give an opportunity to check them out for concealed doodads, or veto them for some ideological reason which they're just not going to budge on.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 1

      You forgot the main function, insulation, as in insulate society from criminals by keeping them apart.

      Actually the two most important functions are insulation and deterrence. Both rehabilitation and retribution are irrelevant in comparison.

    12. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by oobayly · · Score: 1
    13. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You forgot the main function, insulation, as in insulate society from criminals by keeping them apart.

      I didn't forget anything. What you call "insulation" is called incapacitation in criminology, and is a part of deterrence.

      Actually the two most important functions are insulation and deterrence. Both rehabilitation and retribution are irrelevant in comparison.

      As I said, all agree on the importance of deterrence. The importance of the other two are more subjective.

    14. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I don't see why they couldn't have ebooks. Give them a kindle with a bunch of books on it. You should probably make sure there's no WIFi networks available in the prison anyway, since I'm sure it's not unheard of for cell phones to be snuck in. Sure you could probably break the Kindle into pieces and make a shiv out of it, but you can do that with toothbrushes or even paper.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    15. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have just described the current state of affairs in the USA.

      The war on drugs produces the raw materials (IE, people to put through the system).

      The harvesters (the police) get paid for spotting, cutting down and initial rough processing of the raw materials.

      The courts (attorneys and judges) do the separating and grading of the rough cut materials.

      City and County lockup (jails) do the fine detailing to turn graded rough cut materials into finished products (real, full fledged prisoners)

      They then and sell them to businesses (State and Federal prisons) that need the finished products (slave labor prisoners). Call it a business to business transaction.

      State and Federal prisons then use their purchased products (slave labor prisoners) in their various industries (manufacturing of electronics, weapons components for the defense industry, you name it).

      After the finished product is used up (released from prison), they are recycled and put back through the process.

    16. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the only sentences are life without parole and death, insulation without rehabilitation is completely pointless.

    17. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      That comes under the category of deterrence.

    18. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I was with you up until the last two points.

      For the prison-industrial complex the prisoners themselves are the final product. The government pays the industry to house them. This is why they lobby for 3-strikes laws that permanently lock up people for non-violent offenses. A life sentence is a guaranteed long-term investment for the industry.

      (Also, who would have prisoners construct weapons?)

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    19. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by SteveFoerster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we allow retribution to be a part of the sentence we have a problem since the victims will have vastly different ideas of what an appropriate sentence is. The punishment will then no longer be able to fit the crime, some victims will ask for execution while others will be able to forgive and forget.

      You seem to be assuming that people are only imprisoned for actions that have a victim. Unfortunately, all too often the only victim is the one who's being incarcerated, e.g., for drug possession, etc.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    20. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, this won't help the prisoners, but it sure helps the politicians seem "Tough On Crime"!

    21. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That comes under the category of deterrence.

      Huh? How is "protecting society" a punishment?

      It's a consequence of being in prison, which itself is the punishment. Violent criminals aren't deterred by the threat of "protecting society", they're deterred by the threat of being locked up.

    22. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Unless you take some pleasure in punishing a person there is no retribution to be had from imprisoning.

      Retribution is a school of thought that "the punishment should fit the crime". Supporters of this justification for sentences often quote "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

      The criminal sentence used for retribution is to have the criminal pay for damages.

      No, that's just another form of punishment. Equivalent to a fine in terms of retribution and deterrence, but having the additional rehabilitational element of making the offender appreciate the financial cost of the crime to society or the victim.

      The reason the right wants longer prison sentences is more related to deterrence and containment. (Keep them off the streets.)

      Containment is part of deterrence. And no, it's not just that. Retribution is very big amongst those on the right. In part because of that biblical justification. In part because talking tough is part of a right winger's identity. The same reason they tend to be willing to go to war without sufficient justification.

    23. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      This function is all but forgotten by officials in the judicial system, these days (In NL and in Europe in general, it seems). "Stiffer sentences don't work" is something touted as an absolute truth backed by scientific research, but it's little more than a mantra going around in an echo chamber. Stiffer sentences do hurt rehabilitation, and after a certain point they no longer work as a deterrent, but they work wonders for insulation.

      Retribution is a somewhat irrelevant aspect (though not wholly pointless!), but I disagree that insulation is more important than rehabilitation, it varies per case. If there is a good chance to rehabilitate a criminal, then it makes sense to try that; it's cheaper and there's less chance of recidivism compared to a criminal serving an "insulation" sentence. But if there's no reasonable outlook on successful rehab, better to then just keep the criminal out of society for a while. In that sense, I do not believe in "stiffer sentences" per se, but I do believe in longer jail terms for repeat offenders from an "insulation" perspective, as they have proven to be less susceptible to rehabilitation.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    24. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      And this is why the US justice system is completely screwed.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    25. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm sure in a place where criminals are using cigarettes as currency, the ownership of Kindle's would be highly respected. No chance of thefts and the ensuing violence there.

    26. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      It's not "big bulky packages", it's any packages. And it's part of a raft of prison rule changes under the heading of privileges. So the minister's claim that it's about hidden drugs is simply untrue.

    27. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 2

      Nope. Deterrence is to prevent someone from doing something because of the consequences. Insulation is another thing entirely. It is to physically insulate those that are dangerous to society from it.

    28. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 1

      The combination of insulation with deterrence does the job. For lighter crimes deterrence solves the problem. For grave crimes, like murder, the optimal solution for society is indeed life without parole or death sentence.

    29. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Rehabilitation is only really effective for small crimes, where deterrence is also effective. I have nothing against it, but it should be considered at most a secondary concern.

      For real criminals, like serial murders, rapists, etc, rehabilitation is usually a wasted effort and the misconception that it can solve the problem prevents the real solution (which is insulation) from being applied.

    30. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid you are wrong. There's no such thing in criminology as "insulation", you're making it up as you go along.

      Meanwhile:
      "Incapacitation is considered by some to be a subset of specific deterrence. Incapacitation aims to prevent future crimes not by rehabilitating the individual but rather from taking away his ability to commit such acts. Under this theory, criminals are put in jail not so that they will learn the consequence of their actions but rather so that while they are there, they will be unable to engage in crime."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

    31. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I think if you bother to read the remaining 20 or so words in his post, you'll realize that you and GP arrive at basically the same conclusions.

      Oh, sorry. Does it count as a book in your jail if it's longer than a twitter post?

    32. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      And your point of view is exactly what one would expect from someone on the far right. As I mentioned earlier.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

      It's an emotional and political view, not one based on evidence of most effective results.

    33. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retribution means revenge. It should have no place in a civilized society.

    34. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is based on effective results. Rehabilitation has extreme costs to society, and very little effective in recurring and violent criminals.

    35. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 0

      is considered by some to be a subset of specific deterrence

      Obviously you are part of these "some" unenlightened people who like to borrow meanings and give them to words that never had those extra meanings. ;)

    36. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No.

      Prison as a punishment simply does not work. It has been shown repeatedly that it doesn't work, both generally (that negative reinforcement sucks), and that that specific case does not work.

      The only reasonable goal of a prison is protection of society.

    37. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Some, including the people who wrote my university textbook.

      Obviously you are part of these "some" unenlightened people who like to borrow meanings and give them to words that never had those extra meanings. ;)

      No, that would be your entirely invented criminology term of "insulation".

    38. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You've based it on nothing but your feelings and the norms of your politics. Not one iota of evidence informs your point of view.

    39. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 0

      Some, including the people who wrote my university textbook

      Who apparently share your tendency to give extra meanings to words unnecessarily making them less specific, ambiguous and utterly meaningless in the end. :)

    40. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 1

      You apparently are out of touch with reality my friend. There are plenty of studies that show exactly what I just said, but they are not even really necessary to understand that an incarcerated or a dead criminal cannot commit crimes against society. A rehabilitated one (whatever that word really means) can and has done it.

    41. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry my use of technical terms doesn't match your colloquial making-it-up-as-you-go-along expectations.

    42. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry for you of you think defining something as a "technical" term is any justification to arbitrarily misuse of language.

    43. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who wrote your university text book do not define the meanings of terms for all the rest of us.

      The meaning you are defending, written by those who wrote your textbook, only applies within your university course.

    44. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the UK deterrence cannot form part of the reasoning for a sentence. We don't believe people should be imprisoned on the basis of what others may do independently.

    45. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      It might not be the best form of punishment but that's all we have. People don't get flogged anymore or have to walk around with a sign saying 'thief' or whatever, prison is what we have and it should be an experience people don't want to repeat. I fully agree rehabilitation is so much more important than punishment but there has to be some form of punishment, I can't think of anything better that's not some form of violence or public embarrassment, can you?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    46. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say it's untrue, drugs is probably just a small part of it and the politician wants a nice soundbite people can quickly understand and relate to. People do post drugs in, that's a fact, a long with all kinds of other things prisoners shouldn't have. If it's all packages I think mobile phones are a much bigger concern to prison staff than drugs but drugs sounds a lot worse than phones in the news room so that's what they go with. Then someone else says but you can also put books in packages therefore the gov are stopping prisoners from reading and then that becomes the counter line.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    47. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For real criminals, like serial murders, rapists, etc, rehabilitation is usually a wasted effort and the misconception that it can solve the problem prevents the real solution (which is insulation) from being applied.

      What do you base that idea on? Recent studies have shown that a significantly larger part of violent criminals are suffering from ADHD compared to the rest of the population. (Yes, this is a study on grown men, not underdeveloped children and the numbers are close to 60% of violent criminals.)
      Turns out that you can reduce repeat offenses among "real" criminals significantly by diagnosing them and telling them that if they take their pills they will be able to control themselves and stop hurting others.
      It doesn't work on everyone but saying that rehabilitation in those cases usually is a wasted effort is only true if your idea of "rehabilitation" involves electric chocks and waterboarding.

    48. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That comes under the category of deterrence.

      Huh? How is "protecting society" a punishment?

      It's a consequence of being in prison, which itself is the punishment. Violent criminals aren't deterred by the threat of "protecting society", they're deterred by the threat of being locked up.

      If criminals were really all that deterred by the threat of being locked up. Or tormented. Or killed, then crime would have been ended the first time a prisoner was punished.

      Criminals don't think that way. Even when the penalties involve being hanged, drawn and quartered, criminals keep committing crimes. They either don't care, or think they won't get caught, or think they will manage to avoid the full force of retribution.

      We've had thousands of years and innumerable practical "experiments" that demonstrate beyond doubt that you cannot impose virtue externally, be it by force of arms, force of law, or force of religion. The only thing that really keeps people from committing crimes is if you can convince them not to try at all. And there are strong indications that this might be as much a medical/psychological problem as a strictly moral one.

      And one, that, so far we have relatively little success in dealing with on a practical basis.

      Punishment may satisfy the vindictive, but to have any moral credibility, the punishment must FOLLOW the crime. And that means that damage has already been done. As a deterrent, it's pretty useless, and if it's too extreme can actually cause criminals to compound their crimes in an attempt to avoid the punishment.

    49. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You apparently are out of touch with reality my friend. There are plenty of studies that show exactly what I just said

      Your right wing political views are not "reality". And asserting that there are "plenty of studies" does not make it so.

      , but they are not even really necessary to understand that an incarcerated or a dead criminal cannot commit crimes against society.

      I've already pointed out to you that there is no dispute about the deterrence (including isolation) aspects of punishment. The ideological difference is on the retribution/rehabilitation axis.

      Trouble is that outside of your right wing fevered rants, you cannot execute or give life imprisonment to those who have committed less than the most serious offences. Therefore you have to give thought to what happens when burglars and muggers finish their sentences and go back onto the street.

    50. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree that theft of Kindles would happen, your reasoning for why it would happen seems a little off. After all, you can't exactly "use up" a Kindle.

    51. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by exploder · · Score: 1

      Parent and GGP are right, and GP is mistaken, as TFS clearly states. The issue is "a new earned-incentives and privileges scheme", i.e., control.

      --
      Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
    52. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      You forgot the main function, insulation, as in insulate society from criminals by keeping them apart.

      Actually the two most important functions are insulation and deterrence. Both rehabilitation and retribution are irrelevant in comparison.

      Unfortunately, we may keep criminals apart from society, but do so by putting then together with other criminals.

      Prisons have reputation as "finishing schools" to learn criminal trades from experienced pros and as a place to learn the use of violence as an everyday solution for problems.

      It would seem that a better solution would be to isolate criminals from those who would grow and amplify their faults - ideally in the company of better role models. However, coming up with people who can be good role models who wouldn't become victims is hard enough, and getting enough isolation would probably be prohibitively expensive.

      Although dealing with prison-trained criminals isn't exactly cheap itself.

    53. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      And you've now crossed the line into a level of childishness that's not worth pursuing.

    54. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      You apparently are out of touch with reality my friend. There are plenty of studies that show exactly what I just said, but they are not even really necessary to understand that an incarcerated or a dead criminal cannot commit crimes against society. A rehabilitated one (whatever that word really means) can and has done it.

      A dead or incarcerated criminal can and has done it as well. What the word "rehabilitated" really means to most people is that the person in question won't ever do it again. And unlike a dead or incarcerated criminal, may actually be capable of serving society.

      As for "plenty of studies that should exactly what I said", the world, and especially the Internet are FULL of plenty of studies that show exactly what people say. That the Earth is flat, that aliens secretly rule us, that everything is 6000 years old or less. Some actual practical citations bearing the names of people not obviously on an ideological payroll would be far more convincing.

    55. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      punishing people for the sake of punishing them is pure, ineffective sadism.

      Punishing people for doing something wrong is civilization, not sadism.

    56. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Violent criminals aren't deterred by the threat of "protecting society", they're deterred by the threat of being locked up.

      What, you think your grandma would be a violent criminal if not for the prison system?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    57. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 1

      Give them all ereaders, you can't hide a knife in one of those.

    58. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that scarcity is the only reason why people steal.

    59. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by MeNotU · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention victimless crimes like taking a picture of your kids.

    60. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong on many levels (some noted below in the thread) but rather than just modding you down here are some pointers:

      The dividing line between right and left is rather about: incapacitation vs retribution.
      The left may recognizes the need for society as a whole to protect itself from some of it's members (incapacitation) but totally reject the validity of state sponsored retribution.
      The right may claim retribution as the only valid reason behind sentencing but totally reject the need for incapacitation (in itself).
      The effectiveness of rehabilitation and deterrence is greatly debated on both sides.
      The left has argued that many crimes/criminals are a product of society and social injustice and therefore rehabilitation of the "criminal" is futile.
      The right has argued that rehabilitation is beyond the scope of sentencing (retribution) and in many cases tantamount to state indoctrination.
      Deterrence may prima facie be a great reason but lack of empirical evidence makes it less so for anyone who reads up on it.
      Adding to the chance of getting cought is an effective deterrance, severity of the punishment not so much as many criminals simply don't expect to be cought.

    61. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're absolutely right.

      There's also the jealousy, boredom, payback and, oh yea, fuck you, that's why.

      I'd imagine that you'd see a lot of Kindles confiscated by the guards due to possible contraband, as well.

    62. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Criminal sentences have 3 objectives. Rehabilitation, retribution and deterrence.

      Both left and right agree on the importance of deterrence. But the right tend to believe that retribution is the second most important function. Whilst the left believe rehabilitation is.

      There is a fourth category, called incapacitation.

    63. Re: Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Punoshment is not negative reinforcement.

    64. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by JeffAtl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For many crimes, punishment is not really required. For example, if a person is in prison for drug possession and is rehabilitated, while should punishment matter.

      Also, emphasis on punishment can actually hurt society as a whole. If a person is not already animal when he goes into prison, he will be when he gets out.

      I knew that the US criminal justice system was screwed up. It's pretty sad that europe is headed that way too.

    65. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to think that scarcity is the only reason why people steal.

      You seem to think I said Kindles would not be stolen.

    66. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Both the Left and the Right are very active in pushing "Victim's Rights" laws.

      "Victim's Rights" is a code word here in the US for vengeance.

    67. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Criminals don't think that way. Even when the penalties involve being hanged, drawn and quartered, criminals keep committing crimes. They either don't care, or think they won't get caught, or think they will manage to avoid the full force of retribution.

      Perhaps 'criminals' don't think that way, but plenty of other people do.

    68. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      The only useful purpose of prison is to protect society from dangerous individuals while they are being rehabilitated.

      Ever hear of the concept of punishment of bad people? Prison is not supposed to be a state funded college..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    69. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually technical terms are more precise and use different words so one can distinguish between two similar but different concepts. First time, I've seen a technical term have a broader meaning. Anyway, it doesn't matter what's the correct english meaning of deterrence and whether it encompass insulation/incapacitation/isolation or whatever. What matters is that "putting someone in jail so he can't physically hurt others" and "putting him in jail so that others out of jail will get frightened thus commit less crimes out of fear of ending in jail" are two very different concepts.

    70. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 1

      The ideological difference is on the retribution/rehabilitation axis.

      That dispute happens only in your head, my friend. I couldn't care less about retribution, but rehabilitation and nice prisons are not a good way to exert deterrence.

      you cannot execute or give life imprisonment to those who have committed less than the most serious offence.

      No, you can't and that is where the deterrence (as in the correct use for the word) comes in. That said, for minor crimes even rehabilitation has a role, I admit, although it is less important by far than deterrence.

    71. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      When posting something like that you should end with something like "or so I've been told".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    72. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 1

      A dead or incarcerated criminal can and has done it as well.

      Only after he turns into a zombies. You are most likely referring to this possibility, I reckon.

      And sure, there are a lot of studies to back anything you want in sociology and other human "sciences". That is why they say very little to corroborate or refute anything. Locating and identifying those few that produce any useful data, and understanding what conclusions can and cannot be taken from this data is generally a very hard job and requires something that most people lack: common sense.

      That said I do not depend on these studies for my arguments. A bit of logic and common sense is usually enough to show how absurd is your set of beliefs.

    73. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      I asked that very question in OP, but was labelled a Troll.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    74. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      The point is that "punishment" should not in itself be a goal at all. Rehabilitation and protection of members of society should be the only two goals.

    75. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Livius · · Score: 1

      All we know is that prison doesn't deter the people who end up there. It's possible that prison is the reason why so many law-abiding people are law-abiding.

      Justice has to be *seen* to be done, or people will stop believing in it.

    76. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sentencing violent criminals to prison that isn't life without parole allows them to get out and commit more crimes. Sentencing an armed robber for five years means that he'll be out in five, and that's plenty soon enough to go do more armed robberies. If we have better bets to avoid repeat crime, I'd like to see them investigated.

      Otherwise, the robber is likely to get out angry, having picked up a lot of useful robbery tips, and with great problems finding a decent job due to the conviction. Delaying his release may not make up for this.

      Not to mention that violent crime is mostly a young man's activity. If violent criminals never reformed, you'd see more violent crimes committed by older people.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    77. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Violent criminals aren't deterred by the threat of "protecting society", they're deterred by the threat of being locked up.

      What, you think your grandma would be a violent criminal if not for the prison system?

      Well, his grandma has more tatt's and chest hair than most of the guys on slashdot.

    78. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Stop making a fool of yourself, you've already shown to be wrong.

    79. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ideological difference is on the retribution/rehabilitation axis.

      That dispute happens only in your head, my friend. I couldn't care less about retribution, but rehabilitation and nice prisons are not a good way to exert deterrence.

      you cannot execute or give life imprisonment to those who have committed less than the most serious offence.

      No, you can't and that is where the deterrence (as in the correct use for the word) comes in. That said, for minor crimes even rehabilitation has a role, I admit, although it is less important by far than deterrence.

      It works fine in most of Europe:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world/europe/anders-behring-breivik-murder-trial.html?pagewanted=all

      For the second part of the argument, what should be the worst punishment^H sentence?
      Death?
      Life in prison without parole?

      What should the worst class of crime be? Rape, Murder, Spilling 100,000 gallons of oil? More importantly, what should the SECOND or third worse classes of crime be?

      Should we punish someone who rapes little kids less than someone who rapes AND kills them? If not, what incentive do they have to leave a witness alive?

      If I kill 1,000 people, I should probably be tried for homicide. What if I reduce the lifespan of 100,000 by just a year each, statistically speaking? Does it matter if I do it on purpose via a gross negligence or as I'd call it an "optimistic" estimation?

      There are hard questions that your gut reactions of "RAWR! Hurt Bad People!" doesn't address in a stable fashion.

    80. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only useful purpose of prison is to protect society from dangerous individuals while they are being rehabilitated.

      Ever hear of the concept of punishment of bad people? Prison is not supposed to be a state funded college..

      Prison is not supposed to be a hell either. Not everyone who goes to prison is a violent sociopath. Fail to pay court ordered child support? Guilty of contempt, go directly to jail. Got scammed by your business partner and he left you with the tax liability? Ditto.
      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/28/local-courts-reviving-debtors-prison-for-overdue-fines-fees/
      https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/debtors-prisons

      If you were to get sentence to "debtor's" prison that way, though a purely clerical error that took 3 years to correct, what conditions should you be subjected to?

      It's like the damn patriot act. Most people thought it would only apply to brown people, so what did they care? It matters.

    81. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      For example, if a person is in prison for drug possession and is rehabilitated, while should punishment matter.

      Why should rehabilitation matter? That person shouldn't be in prison in the first place. They didn't do anything to justify locking them up as a proportional punishment, and they don't pose the imminent threat of irreparable harm necessary to justify a preemptive act of defense. They didn't even cause anyone harm for which they would need to pay restitution.

      The thing about punishment is that it isn't so much that the person should be punished as it is that they shouldn't be able to appeal to the State for protection against the victim doing to them exactly what they did to the victim. They did it, therefore they claim that it's all right to do it. No take-backs. (More formally: estoppel.) Whether they actually are punished should be up to the victim, though, and there is something to be said for leniency so long as it doesn't place others at risk.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    82. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      A dead or incarcerated criminal can and has done it as well.

      Only after he turns into a zombies. You are most likely referring to this possibility, I reckon.

      And sure, there are a lot of studies to back anything you want in sociology and other human "sciences". That is why they say very little to corroborate or refute anything. Locating and identifying those few that produce any useful data, and understanding what conclusions can and cannot be taken from this data is generally a very hard job and requires something that most people lack: common sense.

      That said I do not depend on these studies for my arguments. A bit of logic and common sense is usually enough to show how absurd is your set of beliefs.

      I guess "logic and common sense" weren't enough for your keen intellect to distinquish between past tense and present or future tenses.

      The generally accepted practical definition for "common sense" is "It matches my predjuices". Common sense, after all, is why people kept insisting that the Earth is flat.

    83. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, which is why 'victim impact statements' are an important part of the system in some places.

      Like it or not, retribution is an important function of the justice system. It's what keeps many people from taking the law into their own hands. Drop it, and we'll be looking at vigilante gangs meting out their own brands of justice over great swathes of the country.

    84. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prison is also about rehabilitation, or at least it's meant to be.

      Does anyone believe that for even a moment? Lock somebody in a cage containing damaged psychopaths with the danger of being raped seen as part of the punishment rather than a problem with prisons, where they will learn to be better criminals from the people with experience, get them indoctrinated into the prison system routine, then let them back out into the world where they will be socially shunned and unable to get a job, but they /will/ have learned all kinds of little tricks about how better to scam and hurt people. Is it any wonder why people who spent enough time in prison have a tendency to keep winding up back there?

    85. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by mjwx · · Score: 1

      For many crimes, punishment is not really required. For example, if a person is in prison for drug possession and is rehabilitated, while should punishment matter.

      Also, emphasis on punishment can actually hurt society as a whole. If a person is not already animal when he goes into prison, he will be when he gets out.

      I knew that the US criminal justice system was screwed up. It's pretty sad that europe is headed that way too.

      I agree with your point as a whole but drug possession is a really bad example. Someone who uses drugs is rarely in need of rehabilitation and never in need of punishment. For those who are so far gone they need drug rehab, a prison is the worst place to get it. This is why in Australia, drug possession is a minor offence that attracts a fine and almost never jail time.

      But, whilst punishment should never be the main goal of prisons, punishment is a form of rehabilitation. The start of rehabilitating a criminal is for them to realise they have done something wrong. Sometimes this requires a liberty to be removed as a direct consequence of that wrong doing, this is not always prison time mind you as a repeat speeder or drink driver will have their license revoked as punishment (and left to rehabilitate themselves of their own devices... with mixed results IMHO).

      Certainly we should never reduce ourselves to "an eye for an eye" level, nor should we make punishment the main goal of prisons, but punishment is part of justice and rehabilitation.

      BTW, I'm am against any law that is named after a victim. They're almost always far too over reaching and end up being abused, if it cant get through on a meaningful, dispassionate title the law itself does not have merit.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    86. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Not really. Deterrence is preventing crime through threat of punishment. The AC you replied to was talking about preventing crime by making it physically impossible (for a time, anyway).

    87. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by Lotana · · Score: 1

      RIP Leslie. He was a genuinely funny comedian without reducing to slapstick.

    88. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Criminals don't think that way. Even when the penalties involve being hanged, drawn and quartered, criminals keep committing crimes. They either don't care, or think they won't get caught, or think they will manage to avoid the full force of retribution.

      Perhaps 'criminals' don't think that way, but plenty of other people do.

      On the other hand, since they're not criminals, they're not likely to have to worry about it. It's not like kids sit down on Career day and say "I think I'll become a criminal! Naw, too much retribution. I'll find some other line of work."

    89. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And when I was at university, reduction of the ability of a criminal to commit further crime by physically locking him up in prison was a part of deterrence.

      Open University A102. Crime and Punishment module.

    90. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It would be it it primarily was about victim's having a say in sentencing. And maybe it is in the hands of cable news pundits. But it looks to me like the law includes a few valuable rights for vitims that are not about vengeance. This from Wiki:

      "Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004
      The Crime Victims' Rights Act, part of the Justice for All Act of 2004, enumerates the rights afforded to victims in federal criminal cases. The Act grants victims the following rights:[14]
      The right to protection from the accused,
      The right to notification,
      The right not to be excluded from proceedings,
      The right to speak at criminal justice proceedings,
      The right to consult with the prosecuting attorney,
      The right to restitution,
      The right to a proceedings free from unreasonable delay,
      The right to be treated with fairness, and respect for the victims' dignity and privacy"
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...

      Certainly when I've been a victim of crime in the UK, I've been appalled at the way I haven't been informed of court dates and outcomes. It's only fair a victim should know what happened in the court case.

    91. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Almost all of those "rights" are primarily put in place so the victim can have a say in sentencing. The other rights, like restitution, are already on the books.

    92. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I'd say a minority are about that. The majority look to be about keeping them safe, informed and giving them a sense of closure. All of which they deserve, and are not to do with vengeance, but simply to help them move on with their lives.

    93. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 1

      I am forced to accept your experience regarding your use of the term "common sense". You seem to be full of prejudices.

      Back to reality, nobody can affect the past. Any solution we propose to any problem is only meaningful in relation to the future. So no a dead or incarcerated criminal cannot commit crimes against society. Regarding violent criminals it is the only sure way to prevent them from doing it. Everything else is wishful thinking.

    94. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by fredprado · · Score: 1

      You don't need perfectly hierarchical punishments even because this has never existed in this world and never will as the assessment of the gravity of a crime is subjective, as in your 1000 people example. In this case even because you cannot determine at all with any degree of certainty this life shortening.

      That said punishment should be unpleasant enough to sufficiently deter people from committing the crime. If society judges that the deterrence isn't working at the desired levels punishment should be increased. If the punishment is not enough to adequately deter a crime and the crime is grave enough life imprisonment or death should be used to prevent known criminals to commit those crimes again.

      All these judgement of value should follow people's will democratically. You would be surprised if you asked the average person how much he is willing to risk to recover known criminals.

      Finally I consider much more important to incentive people to not commit crimes than to commit crimes with restraint, in this sense your argument about the little girl is completely moot.

    95. Re: Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 1
    96. Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Which is a shame. Deterrence should not by any means be a priority, as it all too often trumps the punishment fitting the crime.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  2. Back to the good ol' times... by curious.corn · · Score: 1

    "Please, sir, I want some more"

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    1. Re:Back to the good ol' times... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      "Please, sir, I want some more"

      That's "may I have some more".

      /whips out cane.

      You insolent little whelp, I'll teach you some respect for the Queens English.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Back to the good ol' times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they've only banned them and haven't started burning them...yet

  3. Oh well. by lisaparratt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess it's more important to keep the slaves in check, and the ministers looking good to the far right, than it is to rehabilitate the prisoners.

    1. Re:Oh well. by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, heaven forbid we should end up with well-read ex-cons. They'll be having ideas above their stations.

    2. Re:Oh well. by stealth_finger · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, heaven forbid we should end up with well-read ex-cons. They'll be having ideas above their stations.

      I must've missed the the part in TFM that says they're not allowed to read, or even read specific books. Just the part the limits a way for people to sneak drugs and all kinds of shit in. Because, of course, all prisoners are fine upstanding people that are there just for misunderstanding and sit around all day broadening their minds.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    3. Re:Oh well. by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just the part the limits a way for people to sneak drugs and all kinds of shit in.

      Ignore the minister's political excuses, and look at the complete set of changes in rules. They are here:

      https://www.gov.uk/government/...

      As you see, they are all about the restriction of privileges. The ministers comment about searching parcels for drugs is just a red herring. A lie. You should have been able to tell - his lips moved.

      The problem that has been highlighted is that reading should not be considered to be a privilege, but part of rehabilitation.

    4. Re:Oh well. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Just the part the limits a way for people to sneak drugs and all kinds of shit in.

      Ignore the minister's political excuses, and look at the complete set of changes in rules. They are here:

      https://www.gov.uk/government/...

      As you see, they are all about the restriction of privileges. The ministers comment about searching parcels for drugs is just a red herring. A lie. You should have been able to tell - his lips moved.

      The problem that has been highlighted is that reading should not be considered to be a privilege, but part of rehabilitation.

      A full review of the policy – the first for 10 years – was ordered by Minsters last year and was completed in April. From today the absence of bad behaviour will no longer be enough to earn privileges – prisoners must also actively work towards their own rehabilitation.

      Other key changes include:

      The introduction of a new IEP level – “Entry” – where privileges are restricted.

      Certificate 18 DVDs and subscription channels banned from all prisons.

      A national standardised list of items available for each level.

      An automatic IEP review for bad behaviour, with a presumption of downgrading.

      TVs turned off when prisoners should be engaged in work or other productive activity.

      Prisoners who misbehave will lose their TV.

      Again, that all seems fairly reasonable. The new entry level and no 18 films might be a bit off but they are there as a punishment as well as rehabilitation. Prison isn't a place to enjoy leisurely activities, you're supposed to not want to go back. Still, I don't see where it says that they're not allowed to read or having access to books pulled. One avenue sure but there are plenty still open.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re:Oh well. by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      mind you, it depends on the book... some celebs' autobiographies could be considered part of the punishment!

    6. Re:Oh well. by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Spending their many hours locked in a cell reading, rather than just staring at the walls, does not sound like a leisure activity; it sounds like "Learn to read better so you can have something to do instead of nothing to do". By all means restrict format - solid hardcovers could be used to hit someone, paperbacks are probably OK. Encouraging reading might raise prisoners' ability to pursue education.

    7. Re:Oh well. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Fill in the blanks:

      An __ _______ (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum __ _______, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:Oh well. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Spending their many hours locked in a cell reading, rather than just staring at the walls, does not sound like a leisure activity; it sounds like "Learn to read better so you can have something to do instead of nothing to do". By all means restrict format - solid hardcovers could be used to hit someone, paperbacks are probably OK. Encouraging reading might raise prisoners' ability to pursue education.

      Again, no one is stopping them reading as far as I can tell, just people aren't allowed to post them books. They can still get books through the library or people can send the money for them to get a specific book through the prison. If I'm wrong and they're being stopped from reading then that's bullshit but as I understand it, that's not what's happening.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    9. Re:Oh well. by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      I think the fact is they can help finance their costs by mandating their earned books silo. I think there is likely to be some sort of cost structure planning this was intended to help bolster.

    10. Re:Oh well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, heaven forbid we should end up with well-read ex-cons. They'll be having ideas above their stations.

      I must've missed the the part in TFM that says they're not allowed to read, or even read specific books. Just the part the limits a way for people to sneak drugs and all kinds of shit in. Because, of course, all prisoners are fine upstanding people that are there just for misunderstanding and sit around all day broadening their minds.

      You must have not read about the means by which the prisons can inspect all packages before distribution to the prisoners. You don't think you can just walk into any prison on visitor day and pass a package directly to any prisoner do you? The purpose of prisons or at least the criminal justice system, was to temporarily remove the convicted from society so they could reflect upon their acts and to rehabilitate the convicted so at release they could potentially successfully re-integrate into society. The fact a criminal record forever follows the convicted limits their opportunities to successfully re-integrate into society. In my considered opinion upon release the ex-con should have their criminal record sealed and unsearchable by anyone other than the police under the condition that if the person re-offends within 10 years their record becomes accessible evermore. If a person can refrain from criminal acts for a decade, the likelihood of re-offending is sufficiently close to zero. Non-violent crimes such as drug possession, drug use, etc. should be expunged within six months of release. The government could even offer employers tax rebates for hiring released convicts.

    11. Re:Oh well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prison libraries breed criminal masterminds only a Sherlock could catch. This must be prevented with full, confused force of the English Law. The horror!

    12. Re:Oh well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem here, which has been echoed in these comments already, is that there is jack shit in the prison library and anything ordered through the prison will be insanely marked up.

    13. Re:Oh well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will result in the complete opposite of in check, you can bet on it because I know just how easy it is to upset a convict and what it leads to. Trust me I've been there done that. When a man is deprived of everything the little things turn into big things and messing with that is just asking for trouble, whether it be gassing the guards, destroying shit, or even attacking the guards. I've seen guards get stabbed and sliced with a razor "they do it to leave scar, a reminder" over something little as taking down a picture off the wall or confiscating a toilet paper rose. Although I'm not proud of it, I've assaulted guards over stupid shit, like taking my calender down which led to me busting his fucking head with a home-made national geographic club.

      Treat them like animals and that's just how they'll act.

    14. Re:Oh well. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      anything ordered through the prison will be insanely marked up.

      Aaaaand we have the real reason for the ban.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    15. Re:Oh well. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      A lie. You should have been able to tell - his lips moved.

      A good politician doesn't lie on paper; He can't claim he was quoted out of context if he wrote it down himself.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  4. England != UK by TitusGroan8856 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot. England & Wales does not equal the UK. This ban does not apply to Scotland where the prison service is a devolved body. Sending books to prisoners is only banned in PART of the UK.

    1. Re:England != UK by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot. England & Wales does not equal the UK. This ban does not apply to Scotland where the prison service is a devolved body. Sending books to prisoners is only banned in PART of the UK.

      I was just about to post an almost identical comment when I saw yours.

      If Alabama does something completely ridiculous in its penal system no-one says that 'the US is doing this...' For US readers, it may be helpful for you to think of England as the UK's Alabama. In the south, and governed by ignorant, prejudiced and reactionary people.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    2. Re:England != UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot. England & Wales does not equal the UK. This ban does not apply to Scotland where the prison service is a devolved body. Sending books to prisoners is only banned in PART of the UK.

      I was just about to post an almost identical comment when I saw yours.

      If Alabama does something completely ridiculous in its penal system no-one says that 'the US is doing this...' For US readers, it may be helpful for you to think of England as the UK's Alabama. In the south, and governed by ignorant, prejudiced and reactionary people.

      England contains about 85% of the population of the UK, so it is not really comparable.

    3. Re:England != UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Wales is like the UK version of Canada.

      All barren wildnerness.

    4. Re:England != UK by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      ... barren...

      You do not know what that word means

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    5. Re:England != UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      England contains about 85% of the population of the UK

      So does the retarded part of the US.

      (If you are reading this then clearly your state is not in the retarded part.)

    6. Re:England != UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A large part of the problem here is that for a long time in the history of the UK by many the term "England" was used to denote the United Kingdom. (My source is some QI episode, but I bet you can find a better one)

        As a result, in many foreign languages the equivalent term is used to refer to all of the UK (or rarely "Great Britiain") (Here my source is my own experience in speaking about 5 European languages besides English relatively well)

      I remember hearing from a tour guide who got in a very hairy situation when she was leading a tour in English and in French. At some point she referred to the English-speaking half of her tour as "English" while addressing them. The fact that most of them were from Scotland was quickly pointed out and I guess she missed out on some tips.

    7. Re:England != UK by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      They usually do on slashdot then go on to tie it to somehow tie it to corporations and big business.

    8. Re:England != UK by safetyinnumbers · · Score: 1

      Helpful diagram

    9. Re:England != UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, I DO say "The US is doing being stupid" when only one state is being stupid. They call themselves "United" after all, so they should all take full responsibility for the actions of their countrymen.

    10. Re:England != UK by Rob+Bos · · Score: 1

      Me too. I might say "a US state"; who can really keep track of all the little buggers? I know where California, New York, Washington, and Florida are, but that's about it.

    11. Re:England != UK by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      If Alabama does something completely ridiculous in its penal system no-one says that 'the US is doing this...'

      Outside the US? Yeah, they do, actually.

    12. Re:England != UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, I DO say "The US is doing being stupid" when only one state is being stupid. They call themselves "United" after all, so they should all take full responsibility for the actions of their countrymen.

      Last I checked, UK stands for UNITED Kingdom, so that's a pretty piss-poor excuse for being an ignorant twat.

    13. Re:England != UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you lost track of the argument. You're agreeing with the guy above (that people generalize the whole country based on a portion of a country), and then calling him an ignorant twat for sharing your opinion.

    14. Re:England != UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The important part

  5. begrudge education by ciderbrew · · Score: 2

    If they spent the same on education as they did on locking people up per year then maybe you wouldn't have to lock so many people up.

    1. Re:begrudge education by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they spent the same on education as they did on locking people up per year then maybe you wouldn't have to lock so many people up.

      So, your proposal is that they reduce the Education budget by 95% or so?

      A quick Google shows that the UK Education budget is ~88 billion Pounds, their Prison budget is ~4 billion Pounds.

      Now, perhaps that was really a dig at the USA, and so the UK budgets are meaningless...

      Of course, US total Education spending is on the order of one trillion Dollars (including Department of Education, which is a whopping $53 billion of that), while the total spent on prisons (including such off(prison)-budget items as pensions for guards) is ~40 billion Dollars.

      Which would again suggest you're in favour of lowering Education budgets in the States by ~95% (more like 96%, but the symmetry is nice).

      In other words, can we ditch that tired old trope? It only works because most everyone is ignorant, and most everyone likes to exaggerate for effect, and it gets old real fast once you start googling the numbers....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:begrudge education by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      OMG, you're right! The UK prison population and children in education is exactly the same.

    3. Re:begrudge education by careysub · · Score: 1

      The OP did not state it very well, but it would appear that he has in mind the fact that the cost of keeping a person in prison is more than the cost of sending them to college, year for year.

      Of course with the school age population of Great Britain (which does not count college age people) being about 18% of the total, and its prison population amounting to 0.14% of the population, a ratio of 130-to-1 it would be incredible for the absolute cost of imprisoning the second to exceed the cost of educating the first. But the difference in spending ratios, as you present them is telling: 20-1 vs 130-1. The cost of prison is 6.5 times higher per person.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    4. Re:begrudge education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, you're right! The UK prison population and children in education is exactly the same.

      Lame comeback to being bitch-slapped with actual facts is lame.

    5. Re:begrudge education by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Funny, because you're the one who made the comparison without understanding the order of magnitude difference in the first place.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    6. Re:begrudge education by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, your proposal is that they reduce the Education budget by 95% or so?

      A quick Google shows that the UK Education budget is ~88 billion Pounds, their Prison budget is ~4 billion Pounds.

      It only works because most everyone is ignorant, and most everyone likes to exaggerate for effect, and it gets old real fast once you start googling the numbers....

      You are either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreting the point you are refuting. There is an (ofttimes implicit) assumption that the budget is per capita. Since there are 120 students per prisoner in the UK (122 if we count University students), the amount spent per prisoner is drastically more than the amount spent per student.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:begrudge education by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah. However, it seems to me that we should spend more per prisoner, considering that the prison covers all living expenses for prisoners, and third-graders don't need the same level of fortification. I'd like to save money by having fewer prisoners (this applies especially to the US).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:begrudge education by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      No facts or citation supplied to back up either.

    9. Re:begrudge education by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      He/she used the Department for Education’s total budget; but not the Ministry of Justices’ total budget, which isn't a win for any argument and shows a lack of awareness. You'd not be happy with cherry picking stats either, order of magnitude difference or otherwise. There are around 8.5 million Children in the system and around 100k prisoners. Each prisoner costs way more more per head than child, per year.

    10. Re:begrudge education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... You say fortification, and it makes me wonder. Should children in school be as well protected as prisoners?

      It is hard to smuggle weapons and contraband into prison, but not so much for schools.

    11. Re:begrudge education by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      There are around 8.5 million Children in the system and around 100k prisoners. Each prisoner costs way more more per head than child, per year.

      Yes, and you failed to specify per capita spending when you said, "If they spent the same on education as they did on locking people up per year then maybe you wouldn't have to lock so many people up." If that was truly your intent, then you should have actually said it.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  6. You're using the wrong stick. by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Withholding access to the television, perhaps (gasp!) forcing some prisoners to read, might be a better behavior modification tool.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  7. Prison is not a holiday camp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are already prison libraries with books in them - the prisoners can read those all they like.

    1. Re:Prison is not a holiday camp by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      They'll get burnt in the ensuing riots.

    2. Re:Prison is not a holiday camp by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I suppose it wouldn't be a problem if people sent books to the prison library instead of direct to a prisoner then.

      Perhaps we need a campaign to send old books in to your local prison rather than the charity shop (or *from* the charity shop)

  8. You're using the wrong carrots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about using cigarettes and booze as carrots? You'd still have to limit where and when they are consumed. But think of how many guys would not kill for a cig.

    1. Re:You're using the wrong carrots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, or how about using food and water, or maybe even air as a carrot? I mean, they are prisoners after all, not human beings.

  9. But they have money to give condoms free to girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LONDON: In a bid to cut the growing number of unwanted teen pregnancies in the UK, schools have been advised to provide free morning-after pills and condoms to teenage girls.

    According to new guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), under-25s should be able to access emergency contraception more readily, including pills and the IUD (intrauterine device, or coil).

    Although under-18 conception rates have fallen, England still has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe, said a statement by NICE.

    Improving contraceptive services will help ensure young people get the support they need and reduce unwanted pregnancies.

    NICE has advised commissioners of services in England to give all young people access to contraception and advice at convenient locations so no-one is denied services because of where they live.

    "It is really important that sexual health services offering information and advice can be found in places where young people have access to them," Professor Mike Kelly, director of the Centre for Public Health at NICE said.

    "Evidence clearly shows that the availability of contraception reduces the rate of unwanted pregnancies. Local planners and providers of services must make sure that what they offer is right for their area," said Kelly.

    According to the guidelines, young women should be informed that an intrauterine device is a more effective form of emergency contraception than the oral method and can also be used on an ongoing basis.

    Young women should have timely access to emergency contraception using an intrauterine device, NICE said.

    "Young people often find contraceptive services and advice difficult to locate. This can be for a number of reasons. They may not know where services are, who provides them or when they are open," Kelly added.

    "They can also be wrongly worried that information they give may not be treated confidentially. For that reason, this guidance focuses on ensuring they receive culturally sensitive, confidential, non-judgemental and empathic advice and support tailored to their individual needs," said Kelly.

    Many of the recommendations made in the new guidance from NICE will cost nothing to implement. They look at existing services to ensure everything is being done to give all young people the support and advice they need.

    The new guidance focuses on helping those up to the age of 25. It is aimed at those who have responsibility for contraceptive services.

    This includes the National Health Service (NHS), local authorities and those working in education, and the wider public, private, voluntary and community sectors, NICE said.

  10. Hannibal Lecter by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    To paraphrase Hannibal Lecter, a sane society would either kill them or let them have their books.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  11. WMD on credit phosphorian mind cleansing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    selective reading not just for prisons anymore

  12. UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons by evilandi · · Score: 5, Informative

    The UK has a problem with Islamic extremist gangs in prisons. Printed material from external well-wishers and visitors is a huge contributory factor. This problem is far, far worse than any right-ring white gangs in US jails.

    For example at the high security prison near Evesham, there is a large gang who slash the faces of anyone who refuses to convert to their brand of Islam. This isn't widely acknowledged by the prisons service, but it leaks out through staff such as prison nurses, who have to deal with the end results.

    --
    Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    1. Re:UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Informative

      I see the problem of islamic gang(s) that was highlighted at HMP Long Lartin.

      The parallels are not only to right-wing white gangs in US jails, but to black and hispanic gangs there. If there's enough inmates feeling that they have a common kinship, then they are quite likely to form a gang, and of course bully those who are not in the gang into conformity with the gangs norms.

      The problem there seems to be that the Muslim population has reached 25% in that particular prison, presumably many drawn from the islamic fundamentalists groups.

      But I don't see any reference to printed material having any bearing on this. Do you have a citation for that?

    2. Re:UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I don't see how banning books is going to help when the gang is persuading people with knives rather than reading material. Of course for politicians (rather than boots-on-the-ground prison staff and their inmates) it doesn't matter whether it actually is effective, just that it appears to be.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      That is irrelevant, and should be handled by something that doesn't amount to strict thought control and censorship. If the UK wants to call a spade a spade they should just say they are banning texts to prevent ideas from spreading. Maybe good ideas maybe bad ideas but a threat to control none the less.

    4. Re:UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The Muslims should be expelled.

      This being Slashdot, where one may excoriate adherents of other Superstitions, why not consider sending Muslims who are declared enemies of Western culture and whose only political function (religion is NOTHING more than political ideology based on superstition, which is why religion and the religious merit no respect) is the fight to make societies Islamic. Muslims are toxic because they spread Islam. Anyone doubting this is invited to sell Bibles or Atheist literature near the Kaaba at the next Haj. Religion is not race, religion is not ethnicity, but religion is politics as surely as Communism and Nazism.

      The only good Muslim is a dead one, and there is no moral obligation to enemies. Europe should purge itself of Islam by force, sending the enemy back to its proper home in Arabia and northern Africa.

      It's time to discuss getting rid of the laws designed to protect good people which have no other real effect than blowback. No one not a Muslim has a better life because Muslims are allowed to infest their country.

    5. Re:UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you expel from UK someone with UK citizenship?

    6. Re:UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascist Home Secretary Theresa May had the idea of making people stateless.

    7. Re:UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons by qbast · · Score: 1

      Quite easy considering that UK is island country. Transport them to a nearest shore and expel them 20 miles forward.

    8. Re:UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they are Muslim, throw them out anyway. We have a right to protect ourselves and our society. Really all violent criminals should be deported, just put them on a barge and tow it out to sea and cut it loose. Problem solved.

    9. Re:UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right-wing gangs in US prisons? As liberal with politics as I am, I find it hard to call white supremacist gangs "right-wing". I doubt that they entice fellow prisoners to join based on their conservative economic theories and a restoration of morals or some bullshit like that. I'd bet protection is far more appealing in this instance. And, as we can see from observing American politics, both major parties campaign on protection (for big/small/new businesses, the "little guy", Joe Sixpack's mortgage...)

    10. Re:UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to mention they will be going to a better place and that the A Ark is already on its way.

  13. Seems Really Strange. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Logically people who like to read are far more capable of controlling their behaviour and people who don't like to read are far less capable of controlling their behaviour (it comes with being willing to sit in one place and focusing concentration on a inactive pursuit). So this whole thing makes pretty much no sense at all. Seems much more like an attack on intellectual types to force cooperation not only upon them but on their associates outside of prison. So nothing to do with illegal activity within the prison but more to do with coming up with legal ways of making the prisoners suffer in order to extort cooperation from the prisoner and the prisoners friends and family. This all stinks of falling down the stairs, sexual abuse by other prisoners, extended arbitrary solitary confinement and other hide able tortures to force compliance and turncoat behaviour.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Seems Really Strange. by Primate+Pete · · Score: 1

      Logically people who participate in subsistence farming are far more capable of controlling their behaviour and people who don't farm are far less capable of controlling their behaviour (it comes with being able to defer or ignore gratification and focusing concentration on a tedious/repetitive task in order to survive). Clearly we should send the prisoners farm implements. Not to do so seems much more like an attack on hardworking types to force cooperation not only upon them but on their associates outside of prison...

      Non sequitur? Mistaking the cause for the effect? Just plain ol' weirdness?

    2. Re:Seems Really Strange. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      So books are weapons now?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:Seems Really Strange. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could probably take someone's eye out with the corner of one if you threw it hard enough.

    4. Re:Seems Really Strange. by careysub · · Score: 2

      Giving prisoners meaningful jobs, that are not punitive - or simply profit centers for for-profit prison sweat-shop factories - is actually a very good idea. Farming is not a career today, but it is a rewarding activity that would be very good for developing discipline and productive behavior. It is odd that you find the idea laughable.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    5. Re:Seems Really Strange. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Logically people who like to masturbate are far more capable of controlling their behaviour and people who don't like to masturbate are far less capable of controlling their behaviour (it comes with being willing to sit in one place and focusing concentration on an unproductive pursuit).

    6. Re:Seems Really Strange. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, the pen is mightier than the sword. Or so they say.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  14. One thing, people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we please not forget that miscarriages of justice can and do happen, and that people do go to prisons for crimes they didn't commit.

    If I wanted to learn something from a book, such as Tadashi Ozawa's "How to Draw Anime and Game Characters Vol. 1 - 5" for example, and I was told no because it's "not government approved," I'd be taking this to a Human Rights tribunial.

    Human beings are allowed a right to an education, you know.

    That said, another fascist policy from an evergrowing fascist country.

    1. Re:One thing, people... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      ...but do you have a right to draw lifeless personality-devoid anime? There's a good artistic reason that book is banned!!!

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    2. Re:One thing, people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drawing is a skill. And art is art, regardless or what it is, or how you or anybody else interprets it.

  15. I realized something earlier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't surprise me that the British populace think this is a good thing. The people of the UK are genocidal maniacs, after all. They're honestly no different than most people inside of a prison.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Stages_of_genocide.2C_influences_leading_to_genocide.2C_and_efforts_to_prevent_it (2 and 6 are a stretch, though.)

    Now apply this to people who're pedophiles or have been accused of being a pedophile and it more or less rings true. (Esp. with the death of the guy who took photos of kids vandalizing his property because he was accused of being one.)

    And for the Benefit of the British, Pedophiles != Ephebophiles != Child molesters. Stop synonimizing them as the same thing, they're all different.

  16. why by tleaf100 · · Score: 0

    why,so that they can organise jobs from inside or intimidate witness's? what the hell do they need net for,they already have pay phones in prisons,what more do they need to communicate?

    1. Re:why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the USA, they not only have phones, but video chat and email - heck, they do/will have tablets at some prisons where they can do these things from their own cell.

      Posting anon as I am in the industry (even though nothing I just said is technically proprietary information).

  17. They are still allowed 12 books in their cell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are still allowed 12 books in their cell, so the arguments about denying access to rehabilitatory materials seem like (the knee-jerk UK leftish Slashdot reaction to anything this government does - though obviously trying to filter the internet is stupid) a straw-man to me.

    Given the comment below about Islamic gangs it is probably about restricting the materials read. If this counts as some kind of censorship, then it seems to me to be an acceptable form, provided it is limited to prisons.

    1. Re:They are still allowed 12 books in their cell by radio4fan · · Score: 1

      Given the comment below about Islamic gangs it is probably about restricting the materials read. If this counts as some kind of censorship, then it seems to me to be an acceptable form, provided it is limited to prisons.

      The new ban includes underwear and stationery. It's not about restricting what inmates read, it's about enforcing the new 'earned privileges' regime.

      Books and magazines sent into UK prisons are already censored. For example, porn is now banned.

  18. Re:liberal scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Daily Mail is that way ---->

    Don't worry, idiots like yourself get lost and wind up here all of the time.

  19. dur by tleaf100 · · Score: 0

    ex cons are a very rare breed.it usualy means that they managed to get away with enough cash to last a decent amount of time or they fell in with a women who keeps them straight. most prisoners do repeat sentences time after time. they dont learn or in my experience cannot be arsed,they find it hard work trying to actualy think. why do you think that in prisons that offer education schemes the uptake is so low and that of those who start very few complete them and when they do,in comparison with outsiders figures,prisoners do badly on average marks and passes. remembering that there is always a very small number of people in prison who will use every oppurtunity to educate themselves.

    1. Re:dur by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      For sure, recidivism of ex-cons is high. And the number of prisoners that actively want to improve their minds is probably a minority. But those aren't the relevant issues. The question is: for those that do want books, which will produce the lower recidivism rate: letting them have the books, or denying them the books.

  20. Well, why not? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    You can't have books but here's some free breast implants so you can diddle around.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  21. Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've never been to prison, so I can't say how things work inside with any sort of authority. However, I did go to a very crappy British boarding school which I suspect was surprisingly like prison. The thing at school was that you couldn't have anything of value, unless it fit into your pockets (and even then it was still at risk). You were guaranteed to have anything stolen from you - be it a pencil, a ruler, a calculator, a text book, a tie, shirt, food, porn - anything. The thing is, in such an environment, literally anything has some value, and so it becomes a target for theft.

    If books become a privilege, you can bet they become theft-worthy and so those with the privilege effectively lose it pretty quickly. In that sense, books differ from (communal) television or ping-ping tables or whatnot because whilst communal things can be restricted or withdrawn, only the authorities can do so. Books get withdrawn because you put it down for a second and didn't maintain visual contact with it.

    I'm somewhat surprised that Ministers (who often have been to boarding schools) would think this was such a good idea ;-)

  22. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about writing your own books?

  23. "Fighting Islamic Extremists" can be used to excus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One way to limit face slashings in prison might be to ban or limit access to knives. But, you know, "Islam." Down with books.

  24. Polititicans outdoing themselves by Tridus · · Score: 1

    It's nice to see politicians from other countries trying to set a new standard of idiocy, and making ours in North America look okay by comparison.

    This serves no sane purpose whatsoever. Books are good. We *want* people reading more. Yes, even prisoners. What do you want them doing with their time if they're not reading? Nothing better will be done instead.

    This is the hair-brained scheme of some morons who got into power and don't have the slightest idea of what they're doing. It will accomplish absolutely nothing useful in dealing with crime.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:Polititicans outdoing themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly overpriveleged philistine twits that run the country.

  25. The will only lead by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2

    To the prisoners making pencils out of toilet paper and writing their own underground novels, which are then sold for packs of cigarettes.

  26. Re:liberal scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Return to the Daily Mail or Fox News or wherever you came from. Please learn the English language before returning.

  27. Re:But they have money to give condoms free to gir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you, some kind of sex-crazed Communist? Just tell boys to take cold showers and girls to keep their legs together and the cognitive dissonance problem from having to think of our adolescent children as sexually active beings will go away.

    Keep them ignorant and docile, I say. And bring back the lash...

  28. Interlibrary Loan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was an inmate in a US state prison, Dept of Corrections, I was able to get any book i wanted through interlibrary loan.

    Years later I volunteered at a books for prisoners program run by anarchist, squatter, commune type kids in another state, (Louisana). They would get letters requesting specific books, none of which they had in their commune. I recall an inmate requesting a book on horticulture, or botony; but getting a middle school life-science textbook because that was the closest match. I suggested they refocus their efforts on getting their state to impliment interlibrary loan with the prisons. They didnt care. Perhaps if i didnt shower, or wear untattered clothes that fit me, they would have listened and really made a difference.

  29. The poor prisoners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares about the victims? Let's all wring our hands over the prisoners...

    Tell you what. All those who think prisoners are actually 'victims' can SEPARATE from the rest of us (the majority) and form your own 'prisoner friendly' country, we'll give up a piece of our country for you to live in, with your prisoner-friends, and we can all laugh when they destroy your country from within, while we live crime free lives...

    There, that wasn't difficult was it?

    1. Re:The poor prisoners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you one of those guys who prefers to reduce complex issues into laughably simple and easy to understand answers regardless of how poorly they represent reality, and then forcibly try to live by and shove those answers-for-dummys into being like so many square pegs?

      Yeah. Thought so.

      Luckily there is air enough to go around to share with retarded apes.

  30. Book types by phorm · · Score: 1

    Maybe restrict the types of books they're allowed from inside? Instructional/education books, textbooks, and classic literature (stuff with educational value) would be OK, but the latest paperback of X could be earned.

  31. Look..all they are saying is... by Grey+Geezer · · Score: 1

    that if a prisoner misbehaves he, or she, may lose their reading privileges for a period of time. How can anyone argue against that completely reasonable policy?

    --
    The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
    1. Re:Look..all they are saying is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that if a prisoner misbehaves he, or she, may lose their reading privileges for a period of time. How can anyone argue against that completely reasonable policy?

      Some people don't think prison should be a hell on earth. Even if you are in favor of that for "bad" people, not everyone in prison is there for rape and murder. Some are innocent and only there because they didn't watch this:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

      Some are there because debtor's prison is coming back:
      http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-return-of-debtors-prison

      Or because of illegal kickbacks encouraging judges to sentence harmless people anyway:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

      Prison guards are hardly the elite saints of government. I don't want some petty criminal being extra-judicially punished by some bully on a power trip and I certainly don't sanction it. I'm opposed to the death penalty because I don't trust our government to carry it out fairly, but I'm fine with picking up a rifle and carrying it out myself on the spot if I'm threatened by a would be murderer.

      Most people, who bother to think about it instead of just reacting, recognize that people in prison tend to get out of prison eventually. Given a choice between letting them read all the paperback novels they can and staring at a wall building hate and resentment at further injustice... I'll go with giving them books. I'm actually going to take the box of books I was going to chuck to the local corrections place as a result of this article.

    2. Re:Look..all they are saying is... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      that if a prisoner misbehaves he, or she, may lose their reading privileges for a period of time. How can anyone argue against that completely reasonable policy?

      Because you didn't read the policy.

      The system you describe is already in place in UK prisons.

      What they want to do is make it illegal for anyone to send books to any prisoner regardless of what rights they have.

      The proposed law does not apply to prisoners, it applies to everyone who's not a prisoner.

      And it's completely useless, all packages entering a prison are inspected and can be confiscated and destroyed entirely at the discretion of the warden/jailers. All it does is punish the prisoners trying to do the right thing (I.E. someone doing a university course via correspondence).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Look..all they are saying is... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      The proposed law...

      ...isn't a law. It's a policy. It won't be illegal to send books to someone in prison; they just won't get there.

      (I.E. someone doing a university course via correspondence).

      That would presumably be done through official channels which wouldn't be subject to the ban - the concern is raised that a limit on the number of books kept at any one time could have a detrimental effect in such cases, but that might also be quite easily excepted.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Look..all they are saying is... by Grey+Geezer · · Score: 1

      No, If a loss of reading privilege policy is to be effective, the institution has to have control of reading material. How can it be otherwise?

      --
      The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
  32. Prisoners get PAPER BOOKS!!?? No fair!!! by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

    It's not fair that prisoners get to read paper books that don't report the amount of time spent researching topics into the indelible event log of recorded history, while free and ignorant law-abiding citizens get their interests tracked and logged under the premise of protecting copyrights and giving convenience.

    --
    Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
  33. Authors? by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    What if a prisoner wants to write his/her own book?

    1. Re:Authors? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      What if a prisoner wants to program in a VC-funded tech startup?

      Look, I don't like the idea of removing their books, but being in prison does prevent you from doing other things. And non-prison jobs are usually one thing it prevents.

      Also, access to a computer.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Authors? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      And non-prison jobs are usually one thing it prevents.

      Do they, though? You won't be able to run a server farm or a painting and decorating business, but that's more of a side-effect of incarceration.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  34. Lick Those Pages by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Prisons and books do have some conflicts. The idea that drugs like LSD can be placed on a page and be licked by inmates has been around for a while. There are also issues with prisoners setting paper on fire and throwing it from their cells. The end result is that if reading material is allowed it must be shipped directly from the publisher thus making reading unaffordable for inmates. Much of this is simply administrative nonsense and a way to justify wanting more employees in a prison system. There is also lingering belief that prisons are supposed to apply punishments beyond simply setting an inmate aside from society which is also nonsense. We have never authorized a prison system to be unpleasant in any way. There has been no recognition of the fact that some mental illnesses cause inmates to constantly break any rules that they can. If we do confront the fact that some really mentally ill people are inmates then we would sort of be obligated to provide real care for them and that is expensive. It also would enrage some of the rabid dog members of the public who want convicts tortured or killed in prisons. Long prison sentences may be the only effective way to limit crimes but many inmates want to improve themselves and boredom, insulting conditions and a life that resembles boot camp is exactly the wrong thing to provide as is bad diet and inadequate medical care.

  35. When it's illegal for criminals to get books... by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 2

    then only criminals who are criminals will get books

  36. Sounds more like racist Islamophobia problem by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    The UK has a problem with Islamic extremist gangs in prisons. Printed material from external well-wishers and visitors is a huge contributory factor. This problem is far, far worse than any right-ring white gangs in US jails.

    Bedwetting bullshit. If you go to prison, you're going to try and make friends with people like you to keep the resizing of your asshole to a minimum. And there's no shortage of crazy christian proselytizing in prison, or violent gangs of wasps, but ZOMG MOOOSLIMS!

    But if you really want to complain about fundamentalist Islam, start with the nearest mirror. Because it's either directly supported by western imperialism (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria) or in direct backlash to western imperialism (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan.) But hey, anything that allows you to point your finger at somebody else.

  37. Re:liberal scum by retchdog · · Score: 1

    Wow. Maybe you should try reading a few of these books yourself.

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  38. Not about rehabilitation by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    Prison is also about rehabilitation, or at least it's meant to be.

    Malarkey. I don't think a single serious legal scholar today believes prisons are about rehabilitation.

    Prison is about punishment. That's it. It's a way of hurting someone. This serves three purposes--politics, retribution, and disincentivization. Politically, overcriminalization lets politicians swear they're tough on crime. Retributively, prisons punish in order to hurt the person who did something bad. Finally, the fact that they are punishment disincentivizes criminal behavior.

  39. Re:Prisoners get PAPER BOOKS!!?? No fair!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, I don't remember them banning paper books outside of prisons...

  40. Re:Prisoners get PAPER BOOKS!!?? No fair!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait a second... did I miss the announcement that paper books would be banned outside prisons?

  41. Re:liberal scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is the alternative, I am glad to be liberal scum...

  42. Re:David Cameron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck is a fucking wet pillock?

    Is that like a douche nozzle or a used tampon? If it is I agree.

  43. Re:Prisoners get PAPER BOOKS!!?? No fair!!! by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

    Can't the disinformation crowd Cowards at least get some fake identities for us to pick on? I know, you're trying to bore us into submission, but even you must get tired of it sometimes.

    --
    Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.