Jail, wouldn't four walls and a bucket be enough?

[merid]

This is more of a rant against the politically correct forces, oh and the Labour government.

I think it is a disgrace that prisoners receive more benefits than those that are hard working and useful members of society. In England, the government ran in broadband lines to a prison specially for the prisoners to use. What is laughable is that the surrounding town had to wait two years before a broadband was available to them. I work with a person who's brother has recently been released from jail, he had stolen £5000 from his employer and got 18 months. In prison he spent the majority of the day in the weights room and the rest of the day earning money by making tea for the governor. Upon release he had two thousand pounds and now he is on benefits because he can't be bothered to find work.

There we go, rant over. But this a serious question.

Why should prisoners be given so many rights?
Surely if they want to break the law then they should be punished?

My proposition is that prisoners are automatically put in solitary rooms that have four walls and a bucket. Those prisoners that genuinely want to better themselves or reform can then be given access to teaching materials or courses that would make them useful on the outside. If someone wants to rob an old lady, why should they then be given, heating, three meals a day, pocket money, benefits, free healthcare and entertainment? An eye for an eye but surely there must be someway to teach...

[Victoria Silver]

Surely it depends on the seriousness of the crime. The petty thief and the mass murderer should not be given the same environment, I would think.

This is always a big topic here in the USA, where we lock up a much higher percentage of our population than in the UK, or any other nation for that matter. My own thinking tends to be that certain acts which are now punished by imprisonment should either be decriminalized (consensual acts of prostitution), treated as medical problems (drug abuse), or punished with fines and/or community service (minor theft, minor property damage, etc.)

To be sure, there are some people who are so violent that they must be kept away from others. While the public must be protected, those who are capable of rehabilitation should be offered such opportunities. Nothing says that they should be offered luxuries, but at a minimum they should be kept safe. (The violence which happens within prisons is a horrific scandal, with the worst criminals victimizing those who are less dangerous.)

[Sylvanus]

We could put them in stocks like the old days, the family members providing their food else they starve. On display to be mocked by the public. Sentences would be much shorter because noone would want to live through that again. Repeat offenders would be publicly flogged. I feel this is a very humane way of dealing with criminals. Better than sending them to jail where petty criminals are initiated into full blown gang members that become even more dangerous when released at the end of their sentence.

[merid]

Of course the punishment should fit the crime, but who decides on where the line is? If a drug dealer supplied to a teenager who then went and overdosed. Is it not the teenagers fault for a)buying the drugs and b)using the drugs. Or is it c)the drug dealers fault for handing out a dangerous substance.

Personally I would lay the blame with the drug dealer and punish harshly. But the harsh punishment would not be years but mere months, because the time is harder and everyone has to accept responsiblity.

[eternaltriangle]

Problems with this proposal:

1. By increasing the undesirability of jail, you increase the incentive to appeal - particularly for wealthier criminals (eg. white-collar criminals) that can afford it. A lot of the savings would be eliminated by this.

2. Simply because it costs a great deal to maintain prisoners does not mean that these costs are the result of all the luxuries prisoners enjoy. The main cost is that prisons are darn expensive to operate. Think about it, how expensive would it be to maintain somebody if you were just talking about the cost of their food, a single article of clothing, and some minor luxuries (eg. a shared television, or minimal access to a library).

3. I am not sure that rehabilitation would be aided by making prisons utterly miserable. Moreover, it is probably hard to discipline people when you have nothing to take away from them.

"why should they then be given, heating, three meals a day, pocket money, benefits, free healthcare and entertainment?"
Because we are taking away their ability to provide those things for themselves, in order to protect society from them, in order to rehabilitate them, and in order to punish them.

"Upon release he had two thousand pounds and now he is on benefits because he can't be bothered to find work."
Maybe because employers don't find "spent the last 10 years in a room with a bucket" to be valid experience for most jobs. Moreover, what do you think will happen if you give a man that previously stole from an old lady absolutely nothing upon his release from prison? D'ya think he just might steal from the old lady again?

[thod]

I am not sure if your argument is about the problem of dealing with criminals or your own emotions. You would seem to want to inflict harm on others in order to make yourself feel better.

The concept of punishment is behavioral modification. That the criminal will weigh the positive effects of his crime against the negative effects of punishments. Yet this is not the case. The criminal does not expect to be caught. Therefore the prospect of punishment has no effect on his behavior. Nor will the youth committing his first crimes be aware of the consequences. In your torture scenario all you will achieve is criminals going armed everywhere. They would rather shoot it out with the police than be taken alive back to the torture chamber. They shoot witnesses, policemen and themselves. You create greater crime.

The main use of prison is to place criminals in an environment where they cannot commit the crime. Thus no more crimes are committed, and this is the objective. The idea is not punishment but less crime.

Of course the criminal may serve his time and then reoffend. To prevent this you have to understand why the criminal is offending. The man that is convicted for stealing food to feed his family only crime was to be poor. Thus you use his time inside to train him with skills that will allow him to find a job. The drug addict that steals to feed his habit is cured by his time inside alone.

There should be some punishment to reinforce the cause-effect relationship but it must be proportional. Take for example the banks rogue trader. He loses his capacity to commit the crime upon detection. Since no other bank will then employ him, he cannot reoffend. The only deterrent to the crime in this case is something negative.

I cant help thinking that your thoughts on this subject are driven by anger rather a desire for solutions. I find sadists who enjoy torturing animals to be repulsive. I find the idea of wanting to torture criminals for its own sake likewise.

The internet for prisoners is practical. Whilst they are sitting online pretending to be a level 20 warrior they are not rioting in the dining hall. Its akin to keeping them sedated with drugs. The guards are happy, the prisoners are happy and the costs are minimal.

[eternaltriangle]

Oh and Labour's policies aren't working? Maybe you need to stop reading the Daily Telegraph.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[merid]

What a response. Let me just say that I don't intend harm on people, so it is not just a sadist talking.

By increasing the undesirability of jail, you increase the incentive to appeal - particularly for wealthier criminals (eg. white-collar criminals) that can afford it. A lot of the savings would be eliminated by this.

In my head, I only see my idea for prison working if we lived in a more honest environment. I realise this cannot be the case, but it is all just ideas. I would not have tha appeal system, because as you say it can be abused. But and this is where the honesty comes in, there has to be irrefutable evidence to put someone in jail.

I am not sure that rehabilitation would be aided by making prisons utterly miserable. Moreover, it is probably hard to discipline people when you have nothing to take away from them.

With the solitary confinement, would there really be opportunity to have a riot?

Because we are taking away their ability to provide those things for themselves, in order to protect society from them, in order to rehabilitate them, and in order to punish them.

So when they come out, and these are the few that I have seen. Ok less than ten. They think prison was a joke, they just say around doing what they wanted. That is not punishing them as they don't have to provide for themselves.

I am not sure if your argument is about the problem of dealing with criminals or your own emotions. You would seem to want to inflict harm on others in order to make yourself feel better.

Maybe this is an emotional response, however I do think it is an issue. Where do I inflict harm or torture? The only thing that I am taking away is civil liberties. They still have a room and heating (before was just sarcasm) and toilet facilities. For those that want to better themselves, there is access to teaching materials so they can spend their time in more worthwhile pursuits.

The internet for prisoners is practical. Whilst they are sitting online pretending to be a level 20 warrior they are not rioting in the dining hall. Its akin to keeping them sedated with drugs. The guards are happy, the prisoners are happy and the costs are minimal.

Where is the rehabilitation in this? You keep someone in a sedated state for a few years and then send them out...are they cured?

Oh and Labour's policies aren't working? Maybe you need to stop reading the Daily Telegraph.

It is nice how you have skewed that towards two specific crimes. Yes Labour has reduced some offences, however, and correct me if I am wrong but violent crime is on the rise, weapon carrying and random acts of violence are rising.

Plus thanks to our new Justice secretary, Jack Straw, judges are being told to go easy on offenders and either hand out suspended sentences or small jail times. Prisons are only 400 people away from overcrowding, so they let the excess go free? That doesn't seem right.

Now, I am not a sadist who likes to inflict harm. I agree that my four walls and a bucket is spartan but it was designed to provoke a debate...let me change the image to four walls, a bed and a toilet.

[DeadSpace]

Running broadband into a prison...just wrong, dial up at 28.8 should be the most they're allowed.

Solitary...no. Mandatory classes better solution, time gets extended unless you have enough class credits for release.

[Sylvanus]

The internet for prisoners is practical. Whilst they are sitting online pretending to be a level 20 warrior they are not rioting in the dining hall. Its akin to keeping them sedated with drugs. The guards are happy, the prisoners are happy and the costs are minimal.



Where is the rehabilitation in this? You keep someone in a sedated state for a few years and then send them out...are they cured?



I agree with this. If the prisoners are 'happy', are they really being punished. Did they learn their lesson? Placing my 3 year old in time-out teaches him a lesson, placing a teenager in time-out doesn't, he'll sit their for 3 minutes with the knowledge that that 3 minutes makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. Placing an adult in prison while giving them access to cable and the internet is essentially the same thing as a teenager in time-out. He'll do his time, then get out and it's business as usual, except this time he's got connections to other criminals that are more than willing to team up.

[Antares]

I've heard that in one British prison, the facilities are so luxurious that they're better than what most civilians pay for. There's swimming pool, basketball court, TV sets etc

[Rei]

I've heard that in one British prison, the facilities are so luxurious that they're better than what most civilians pay for. There's swimming pool, basketball court, TV sets etc

Either way... living in prison is better than the way some of those people live on the outside.

[Antares]

Either way... living in prison is better than the way some of those people live on the outside.
The thought struck me: Could this actually encourage crime? Get away with it, you gain. Get caught, you gain.

[thod]

I agree with this. If the prisoners are 'happy', are they really being punished.

What is your objective? Is it the prevention of crime or the torture of criminals?

If someone is imprisoned for life without chance of parole then punishment serves no purpose. The prisoner will never be released to re offend. In this case punishment would only serve as revenge, the desire to see harm done to others for harm done to oneself. Upon imprisonment further crime is prevented.

[merid]

What is your objective? Is it the prevention of crime or the torture of criminals?

If someone is imprisoned for life without chance of parole then punishment serves no purpose. The prisoner will never be released to re offend. In this case punishment would only serve as revenge, the desire to see harm done to others for harm done to oneself. Upon imprisonment further crime is prevented.

Wait a minute, you think it is a just enough to prevent a crime? If a crime has been commited then you are going to have a wronged party, do you think that they are going to think the crime is being paid for by someone just living where they don't want to?

It is not a case of torturing criminals. So long as someone has their health, both mental and physical, are they being mistreated?

This is a personal view now, if a prisoner is going to be in prison for the rest of their lives, what is the point of them being alive?

Thod, perhaps you can answer a question for me that was being asked at work the other week. If you partner was raped, what would you do? Can you really say that you would be happy with perpetrator spending a few years playing ping pong?

[thod]

Thod, perhaps you can answer a question for me that was being asked at work the other week. If you partner was raped, what would you do? Can you really say that you would be happy with perpetrator spending a few years playing ping pong?

This is where you have to stop thinking as a victim and start thinking as a judge. You hear such cases all day for years and it is not shocking. You evaluate the damage done to the victim and set your tariff.

If you take the stance of the criminal you say "I got a few minutes pleasure from the rape, why should I spend years in prison".

Thinking as a victim is not a reasoned approach. The judge cannot undo what has been done, all he can do is prevent recurrence.

I minded of the Ghandi quote "An eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind". How do you prevent excessive punishment by victims. If someone steals something small from me I may be so outraged that I call for their death. You can never allow victims to make policy.

Consider the case of car driver that hits and kills your child. The driver had no chance to stop in time. You have suffered a great loss, yet the driver could do nothing to prevent it. Your loss should not be equated with an equal loss to him. The law is not concerned with recompensing victims but ensuring that law breakers receive justice. In this case the driver would be released since he has done nothing wrong.

[Antares]

This is where you have to stop thinking as a victim and start thinking as a judge. You hear such cases all day for years and it is not shocking. You evaluate the damage done to the victim and set your tariff.


And at this point we should let go of subjective emotions also, and analyze this as though it wasn't your partner who was raped; in fact, he/she never was your partner at all. It was some random guy you couldn't care less about, and same with the criminal. Focus on the raping and the logical punishment alone.

[Sylvanus]

What is your objective? Is it the prevention of crime or the torture of criminals?

If someone is imprisoned for life without chance of parole then punishment serves no purpose. The prisoner will never be released to re offend. In this case punishment would only serve as revenge, the desire to see harm done to others for harm done to oneself. Upon imprisonment further crime is prevented.

My objective is to reduce crime. Namely by making the penalty severe enough that the average person would consider the possibility of getting caught not worth the risk. Second, it is important that if a wrong is committed, that the person is punished, especially in the case of life imprisonment. The average criminal should know that if they get caught for a sufficiently heinous crime, that there is a very real possibility that they will be in jail for the rest of their life and it won't be easy. I don't care if it doesn't cost me an extra cent and the person will be in jail the rest of their life, there is absolutely no reason they should have any sort of access to cable TV or internet. If they are good, they can have books.

[thod]

Namely by making the penalty severe enough that the average person would consider the possibility of getting caught not worth the risk

Well the death sentence is about as far as you can go. Yet still there are criminals. Nobody commits a crime with the intent of getting caught. We can safely conclude that the criminals do not expect to get caught and therefore the penalty is not important. We have tiers of punishment. If the sentence for rape is the same as for murder you have given the rapist an incentive to kill each of his victims. In doing so he greatly reduces the chance of identification. We want the burgler to take the goods and leave instead of killing the householders. So we set different tariffs for the severity of the crime.

[Sylvanus]

Well the death sentence is about as far as you can go. Yet still there are criminals. Nobody commits a crime with the intent of getting caught. We can safely conclude that the criminals do not expect to get caught and therefore the penalty is not important. We have tiers of punishment. If the sentence for rape is the same as for murder you have given the rapist an incentive to kill each of his victims. In doing so he greatly reduces the chance of identification. We want the burgler to take the goods and leave instead of killing the householders. So we set different tariffs for the severity of the crime.

Studies have shown that for every person executed for murder, it prevents between 12 and 20 more murders. Those are some pretty strong numbers.
On the second part: Agreed. While rape is certainly a heinous act, it is not as bad as murder and should be punished accordingly.

[thod]

Studies have shown that for every person executed for murder, it prevents between 12 and 20 more murders. Those are some pretty strong numbers.

Studies have also shown that 95% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Do you really think the psychopath serial killer decides not to be a psychopath serial killer because of this? I propose that he would continue regardless. You may argue that he is driven and therefore not logical. If facing a death penalty the logical move is always to shoot it out with the police.

[merid]

Studies have also shown that 95% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Do you really think the psychopath serial killer decides not to be a psychopath serial killer because of this? I propose that he would continue regardless. You may argue that he is driven and therefore not logical. If facing a death penalty the logical move is always to shoot it out with the police.

I hope you will pardon the term, but "statistically" the serial killer is a very small percentage of the population, so there is no need to wildly exaggerate.

You cannot apply your own though processes to another person, how many people do you know that do things logically?

Some may just call it arrogance that they think they can get away with the crime they commit, and if all you do is lock them up in a health spa for a few years, does that not just reafirm in their minds that it is acceptable?

I am not going to go into the specific crimes, but seriously can you say that true rape is not as heinous as murder? It is taking away someones liberty, undeservedly, taking away their confidence and degrading them.

[thod]

I am not going to go into the specific crimes, but seriously can you say that true rape is not as heinous as murder? It is taking away someones liberty, undeservedly, taking away their confidence and degrading them.

Yea I can say that. Suppose someone was to blind me. After a few weeks of being in the dark I would say "give me an anal reaming if you want just bring my sight back". There are far worse fates. There isn't a parent in the world that wouldn't prefer their kid returned, raped by the psycho, but returned to them rather than dead.

[TheLastMohican]

Just an anecdote: There is a Federal law requiring cable television in prisons. So a local warden got cable, and limited it to the Nickelodeon and the Weather Channel.

The prisoners were not pleased. :laugh:

[Rei]

Just an anecdote: There is a Federal law requiring cable television in prisons. So a local warden got cable, and limited it to the Nickelodeon and the Weather Channel.

The prisoners were not pleased. :laugh:

LOL!
That's hilarious.

On rape...
I sometimes wonder if rape is worse than being killed. Sure family and friends would prefer that the person was not dead... but seriously... life after that trauma.

[eternaltriangle]

My objective is to reduce crime. Namely by making the penalty severe enough that the average person would consider the possibility of getting caught not worth the risk.

1. This assumes people are rational actors. At the risk of offending my economics professors in undergrad... people are not rational!

2. This encourages people to go further in their resistance to arrest, possibly stealing or killing more in the process.

3. You are ignoring the possibility that harsher prisons will make prisoners less likely to be reformed.

Your objective a priori socially INefficient, because it does not consider the welfare of all members of society, which include prisoners (who hopefully will one day be productive members of society... instead of messed up psychopaths driven mad by solitary confinement). The purpose of all laws should be to maximize the welfare of society. Minimizing crime (and if minimizing crime is all you care about, why not get rid of due process, and just accuse everybody that looks at me cock-eyed) represents a subset of societal objectives - which cannot exclude criminals, who are still members of society.

Of course, this argument is meaningless without data. Do better prison conditions (or better conditions relative to the general public) reduce or raise crime?

[merid]

1. This assumes people are rational actors. At the risk of offending my economics professors in undergrad... people are not rational!

2. This encourages people to go further in their resistance to arrest, possibly stealing or killing more in the process.

But you are taking a rational take on what you would do when confronted with harsher sentencing. In a death penalty state does a murderer really try to kill police officers on arrest?

[eternaltriangle]

But you are taking a rational take on what you would do when confronted with harsher sentencing. In a death penalty state does a murderer really try to kill police officers on arrest?

Okay, so at the very least, you accept my first argument - deterrence doesn't work, and you have lost the argument.

These two ideas are not as mutually exclusive as you imply. The crime is often an act of passion - the escape is not. People can do irrational things (eg. murder) very rationally - suicide bombers calculate the most effective way for them to commit suicide. Because people are procedurally rational, they may be more likely to kill police officers, if they think they are likely to die (or serve time in horrible prisons). This is not likely to affect their calculus, if they get really mad one day and shoot somebody for sleeping with their wife, or itchy on their trigger finger while dealing drugs.

[merid]

But we are not talking about the rationailty of punishment. Where have I said or implied that harsher sentencing doesn't work? Also notice that my harsher punishment idea is not applicable to all, those that want to better themselves can.