Prison officer strike! your thoughts??

[sgtkate]

But in 2012 Reoffending rates reached a record level.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18188610

 

In 2013 Reoffending rate increases

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/reoffending-rate-increases-8475391.html

 

And in 2016 Reoffending rates for young criminals 'at highest level for more than 10 years'

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3421223/Reoffending-rates-young-criminals-highest-level-10-years.html#ixzz4QAql8cUR

 

Just of soft do prisons need to be to stop them reoffending.

 

But just having a TV doesn't really do rehabilitation. I'm not saying give them a TV and Netflix necessarily but spend time and effort trying to work out why they have committed and crime and how they can be helped so they don't do it again. Does that make sense?

 

I'm not being a soft liberal leftie here, I'm trying to be a pragmatist! And I like debating with you, we disagree but can actually have an exchange of views. Makes a nice change.

[Petminder]

But just having a TV doesn't really do rehabilitation. I'm not saying give them a TV and Netflix necessarily but spend time and effort trying to work out why they have committed and crime and how they can be helped so they don't do it again. Does that make sense?

 

I'm not being a soft liberal leftie here, I'm trying to be a pragmatist! And I like debating with you, we disagree but can actually have an exchange of views. Makes a nice change.

 

That would involve taking money from one part of the public sector and giving more to prisons.

 

 

Lets say the inmate says I commit crime because don't have a job, the answer is to give them a job but that means someone that didn't commit crime will have to go without that job.

 

They might say, I don't want to work and benefits aren't enough to live on, do we then give them more free money.

 

There might be someone that says I didn't like government giving the tax I pay to criminals and scroungers so I decided not to pay my tax. How would we solve that problem.

 

 

Its nice when debate remains civil even when there is no agreement.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Petminder

[sgtkate]

That would involve taking money from one part of the public sector and giving more to prisons.

 

 

Lets say the inmate says I commit crime because don't have a job, the answer is to give them a job but that means someone that didn't commit crime will have to go without that job.

 

They might say, I don't want to work and benefits aren't enough to live on, do we then give them more free money.

 

There might be someone that says I didn't like government giving the tax I pay to criminals and scroungers so I decided not to pay my tax. How would we solve that problem.

 

 

Its nice when debate remains civil even when there is no agreement.

 

I think that's too simple. If they say I stole because I didn't have a job, then clearly there needs to be more follow up questions, like why don't you have a job? Or where did your jobseekers money go so you couldn't afford food etc.

 

Ultimately if the numbers add up then we should try it. Without bringing in arbitrary executions for low level crimes we aren't going to solve our prison numbers overnight so we need to think more openly about how go about rehabilitation and punishment.

[rudds1]

The trouble is that no-one really gives a monkey's about prisons or prisoners or anything remotely to do with the subject. I'm not saying it should be the attitude but that's what I've found.

 

out of sight out of mind ?type situation

[spilldig]

out of sight out of mind ?type situation

 

Yes, I think that's one thing. The very few times I have heard it mentioned in public the overwhelming comment is, they deserve all they get, and as I say, I don't think that's how it should be but that's the way it's regarded.

[phil752]

I think that's too simple. If they say I stole because I didn't have a job, then clearly there needs to be more follow up questions, like why don't you have a job? Or where did your jobseekers money go so you couldn't afford food etc.

 

Ultimately if the numbers add up then we should try it. Without bringing in arbitrary executions for low level crimes we aren't going to solve our prison numbers overnight so we need to think more openly about how go about rehabilitation and punishment.

 

I feel you want a theoretical idyllic world, low level crime is habitual and causes untold misery to eqaly disadvantaged people.Too many people try to make excuses for disruptive behavior.

[sgtkate]

I feel you want a theoretical idyllic world, low level crime is habitual and causes untold misery to eqaly disadvantaged people.Too many people try to make excuses for disruptive behavior.

 

I'm not making excuses at all. Theft is not ok. Vandalism is not ok. Assault is not ok etc. Low level crime is horrible and seems to be ignored. I'm simply trying to pragmatic about how we reduce it. Evidence shows that nasty prisons do not improve reoffending rates and nicer ones do. This is a very good article comparing 2 diverse prison systems:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12

 

Let's ignore the prisoner for one minute. If option a was shown to be more successful than option b you'd support option a, I'd hope. So simply because option a in this case seems to be being 'nice' to criminals it seems to be shoved to one side as ridiculous. If there was evidence that a hard nasty jail reduced reoffending rates (ignoring the death penalty as that's a v different conversation) then I'd equally suggest we gave that a try too.

[phil752]

I'm not making excuses at all. Theft is not ok. Vandalism is not ok. Assault is not ok etc. Low level crime is horrible and seems to be ignored. I'm simply trying to pragmatic about how we reduce it. Evidence shows that nasty prisons do not improve reoffending rates and nicer ones do. This is a very good article comparing 2 diverse prison systems:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12

 

Let's ignore the prisoner for one minute. If option a was shown to be more successful than option b you'd support option a, I'd hope. So simply because option a in this case seems to be being 'nice' to criminals it seems to be shoved to one side as ridiculous. If there was evidence that a hard nasty jail reduced reoffending rates (ignoring the death penalty as that's a v different conversation) then I'd equally suggest we gave that a try too.

 

Im big on the broken window theory, allow one and you get a street full. Start making excuses and listening how it is societies fault is the thin end of the wedge, when you see young people on low level job and then others that just cause mayhem out of the same area, why should the system bleat on how disadvantage the ones that cause mayhem are.

[sgtkate]

Im big on the broken window theory, allow one and you get a street full. Start making excuses and listening how it is societies fault is the thin end of the wedge, when you see young people on low level job and then others that just cause mayhem out of the same area, why should the system bleat on how disadvantage the ones that cause mayhem are.

 

It shouldn't. People chose to commit crime in the most part, always some exceptions where people are forced but let's ignore those for now as they add nothing to the debate.

 

I'm not saying we give young people who commit crime an easy time BECAUSE they committed a crime, I'm saying that we should give them an easier time in prison IF it is proven to lower reoffending rates.

 

As I said in my previous post, lets all completely ignore the prisoner and what's better for them for a minute. Pretend they have no rights or personality or anything. If something is demonstrated to have a positive impact on offending AND reoffending rates then we should look into it, regardless of what that thing is. I think you are getting way to caught up in being adamant on punishing someone even if that has no impact on crime rates. It's almost like revenge and serves no purpose. I'm sure ALL of us want less crime, so let's research all options, both with prison and with social engineering to see if we can't reduce it.

 

And yes, the broken windows theory is indeed a valid one. But making prison a horrible place doesn't fix the window.

[Petminder]

I think that's too simple. If they say I stole because I didn't have a job, then clearly there needs to be more follow up questions, like why don't you have a job? Or where did your jobseekers money go so you couldn't afford food etc.

 

Ultimately if the numbers add up then we should try it. Without bringing in arbitrary executions for low level crimes we aren't going to solve our prison numbers overnight so we need to think more openly about how go about rehabilitation and punishment.

 

You could keep asking questions and still not get to the cause, for most of human history society as set rules for for the benefit of all, and for all that time some people have found those rules impossible to follow. In my opinion the problem is unsolvable, we need rules but there will always be people unable to follow the rules.

 

---------- Post added 16-11-2016 at 16:26 ----------

 

I'm not making excuses at all. Theft is not ok. Vandalism is not ok. Assault is not ok etc. Low level crime is horrible and seems to be ignored. I'm simply trying to pragmatic about how we reduce it. Evidence shows that nasty prisons do not improve reoffending rates and nicer ones do. This is a very good article comparing 2 diverse prison systems:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12

 

Let's ignore the prisoner for one minute. If option a was shown to be more successful than option b you'd support option a, I'd hope. So simply because option a in this case seems to be being 'nice' to criminals it seems to be shoved to one side as ridiculous. If there was evidence that a hard nasty jail reduced reoffending rates (ignoring the death penalty as that's a v different conversation) then I'd equally suggest we gave that a try too.

 

British Prisons are nicer places than they used to be, but despite this the re-offending rates have increased.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35813470

Breivik's world

Three cells - one for sleeping, one for studying, one for exercising - plus daily access to exercise yard

Can play video games, watch TV and read newspapers

Has a computer (without internet access)

Can prepare his own food and do his own washing

Has phone conversations with a "female friend"

Contact with prison staff, lawyers, a priest, health professionals

Has declined to play chess with volunteers

Built a gingerbread house as part of a prison competition

 

 

There are people living freely in the UK that don't have what Breivik has.

 

I don't think we could afford such a system, but I would be happy to designate one of the many uninhabited islands round the UK a penal colony in which prisoners had more freedom.