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.'"
"Please, sir, I want some more"
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
They'll get burnt in the ensuing riots.
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.
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.
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
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
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)
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
There's a 4th, protecting society by removing dangerous individuals from society.
...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.
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.
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 ;-)
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.'"
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.
One way to limit face slashings in prison might be to ban or limit access to knives. But, you know, "Islam." Down with books.
Case in point: Prison guards find mobile phone in hollowed out Weetabix
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.
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
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.
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.
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
To the prisoners making pencils out of toilet paper and writing their own underground novels, which are then sold for packs of cigarettes.
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
Yes, this won't help the prisoners, but it sure helps the politicians seem "Tough On Crime"!
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.
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...
And this is why the US justice system is completely screwed.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
Yes, it is based on effective results. Rehabilitation has extreme costs to society, and very little effective in recurring and violent criminals.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry my use of technical terms doesn't match your colloquial making-it-up-as-you-go-along expectations.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
What if a prisoner wants to write his/her own book?
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.
And you've now crossed the line into a level of childishness that's not worth pursuing.
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.
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.
then only criminals who are criminals will get books
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!”
Give them all ereaders, you can't hide a knife in one of those.
You seem to think that scarcity is the only reason why people steal.
Not to mention victimless crimes like taking a picture of your kids.
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.
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.
Wow. Maybe you should try reading a few of these books yourself.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
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.
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.
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 ----
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.
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.
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."
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 asked that very question in OP, but was labelled a Troll.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
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.
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.
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
Stop making a fool of yourself, you've already shown to be wrong.
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
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.
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.
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).
RIP Leslie. He was a genuinely funny comedian without reducing to slapstick.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/t...
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.
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.