Prison - does it work

[Stretts]

As a follow on from another question of 'are prison sentences pathetic' - can anyone name a burglar or shoplifter or rapist other than high profile cases - NO of course you cant - they are anonymous - well that should change, Do you see anyone doing CommunityService - no of course you dont because they can't where striped overalls because that would breach their human rights - well excuse me but having committed a burglary, theft of rape I think they have forfited their rights - bring back the stocks and the gallows - let the public in the region that they have committed their offences decide on their punishment. If Parliament haven't the balls to decide on what punishment fits the crime then let the people choose - we vote on Big Brother etc then why not on this.

[Zen]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article313789.ece

[bernardo]

As a follow on from another question of 'are prison sentences pathetic' - can anyone name a burglar or shoplifter or rapist other than high profile cases

... I was just about to answer your question ....

 - NO of course you cant - they are anonymous

...when you interrupted me and prejudged my answer instead of letting me give my own answer.

 - well that should change,

full stop, not comma.

Do you see anyone doing CommunityService - no of course you dont

You're interrupting me again.  Don't forget your apostrophes, by the way.

because they can't where

I presume you mean "wear"?

striped overalls because that would breach their human rights

No it wouldn't.

 - well excuse me but having committed a burglary, theft of rape

"Theft of rape"?  Is that a crime?

I think they have forfited

Do you mean "forfeited"?

their rights -

Have you lost all your full-stops?

bring back the stocks and the gallows - let the public in the region that they have committed their offences decide on their punishment. If Parliament haven't

Parliament (singular) "hasn't", not "haven't" (plural).

the balls to decide on what punishment fits the crime then let the people choose - we vote on Big Brother etc then why not on this.

Aren't you going to finish on a question mark?  This is a question-and-answer website, not a free-for-all rant festival.

[El D]

The people elected in a free democracy to run the country decide on sentences, those with a lifetime of experience in the legal system enforce them. Personally I think it beats the mob justice you so desperately crave even though you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[ICEMANSAV]

I feel that was out of order Bernardo. The OP has expressed his/her opinion and asked a question " prison does it work " for input from other users. I don't feel that every post must be gramatically correct etc., if the point has got across.

[jake-the-peg]

He's right Bernado that was very funny - I mean naughty! (hope you dont make any grammatical errors any time soon - we'll all be watching)

I think it rather depends on what you think prison is there for. It seems to have several roles - 1) keeping people off of the streets who are too dangerous to be at liberty, 2) acting as a punishment 3) acting as a deterrent 4) reforming people.

It's pretty good at (1) we don't see many escapees although you can argue the terms may or may not be long enough. (2) is incredibly difficult to guage - nothing short of hanging petty thieves seems good enough for some people's blood lust. (3) Not really, people are deterred by a high probability of being caught not strict punishments. Which leaves us with (4)  Ironically it's not prison but the period immediately after release that's most relevent to reoffending. The most critical factors are employment, training, drugs, money and accommodation.

Many ex-cons are just dumped outside the gates with a few quid and the clothes they stand up in - then we wonder why they go and rob someone.

We need to build fewer prisons and more halfway houses where releasee's can be paroled to under supervision and from where they can get a job - then you might see a change

[Ding-Dong]

Unwarranted and unkind condescension from bernado aside (as you quite rightly point out, this is a Q&A site and yet you went to the trouble of posting a reply without answering - pot and kettle???), I feel there were valid points.

I am somewhat, ahem, right wing shall we say when dealing with punishment and firmly believe the threat of prison should be a deterrent - if you get caught committing and act of burglary (and trust me, as the victim of a burglary, this is a heinous crime - your personal possessions are rifled, the place is trashed and then in my case the scumbags decided to crap everywhere) you are banged up for a decent length of time and forced to do hard labour.

Similarly violent crime, and for the most evil crimes, rape, paedophilia and pre-meditated murder, you are locked up for the rest of your natural life, fed bread and water and your cell should be dark and dank.

Make the thought of going to prison a big enough deterent to make people think twice before committing their crime - why is this so hard???

If we are worried about the number of prisons cells, build more prisons - I'd rather see my tax money going toward this than a lot of other things it gets spent on (I propose using the Isle of Sheppey as a prison Escape from New York stylee - fill a craphole with our scumbags and let them wander around feral like - yes, very tongue in cheek). 

[ICEMANSAV]

For Ding Dong. Q : Prison does it work?

 

A : No.

[Ding-Dong]

Continued......

I also firmly believe that you forfeit any rights whilst in the act of a crime, and for this reason I have absolutely no problem with Tony Martin killing Fred Barras (pity he didn't kill Fearon as well - utter scumbag that he is). If he was not there, he would not have been shot - in my, possibly simplistic view, this situation really is as plain and simple as that. I'm not advocating this type of action is what everybody should do, but equally those that do take this sort of action should be immune from prosecution - If I confronted a burglar, who may be intending to harm my family (I wouldn't know, would I), I would have no hesitation in swinging my baseball bat as hard as I possibly could around the side of his head - and I think I'm right in thinking that I'd get away with it now (that, to me, under the circumstances, is reasonable use of force).

Despite these views, and this may appear contrary to what I've posted, I am steadfastly against the death penalty.

Over to you bernado to correct my spelling and grammar - I don't doubt for a minute that I've made a few mistakes, and feel I would benefit from your obvious wisdom.

[Ding-Dong]

Please ignore my previous two posts - ICEMANSAV has well and truly convinced me that my views are wrong.

[ICEMANSAV]

Happy to hear Ding. And it didn't take two posts of right wing waffle ;-)

[jake-the-peg]

Punishment is not a deterrent to crime.

If deportation and hanginging for the theft of  a loaf of bread did not stop such offenses being comitted, why on eart would prison deter burglars.

Sucessful detection and prosecution deters crime.

So Ding-Dong when you were burgled and reported it - eactly how interested were the police? - did you even get somebody come around you look at your place?

Prison is no deterence if you don't think you'll get caught.

How many people do you think would smoke if they really thought they'd get cancer next week? or commit adultery if they thought their partner would catch them?

[Ding-Dong]

This is part of the problem isn't it - my right wing ramblings are generally borne from a position of impotence because I certainly can't do anything about our increasingly lawless society, but more importantly, the people that, in theory, can sort the problem out either won't, or simply can't be bothered.

To answer your question Jake, it took them two days to make an appearance, which is a disgrace, but then why come and see the victim of a burglary, which is classed as a minor crime with a poor clear up rate, when they can sit by the side of the road getting guaranteed results because a motorist absentmindedly drifted over the speed limit.

I don't think detection is the answer - I think prevention is the answer, and if prevention is the threat of proper sentencing, that is good, isn't it?

Surely people on this site get irked knowing that somebody committing a burgalry will not get banged up, and when (if), eventually, they do get banged up (probably after scores of burglaries), they'll be cossetted with a gym, TV, three squares and reasonable comfort.

Doesn't that annoy people???

[kaktus]

Nope ding-dong I can honestly say that, that doesn't bother me at all. I think the point of prison is that your freedom has been taken away. That is the only point,  not being punched, hanged, bled, ridiculed in public, stoned or whatever it that some people would like to do with prisoners. Of course it bother me they don't get caught, but that prisonsers have some comfort don't bother me at all.

I most certainly can understand why people are devasted when their home is burgled, as you say ding-dong, it is not nice to have your personal things scattered, looked at/in and stolen. But I'm pretty sure that speeding or drunk motorists kill or injures more people each year than burglars do.

Long prison sentences doesn't deter anyone from doing a crime anywhere. In California there is that law, where if you commit a crime, eg. burglary three times you're in for life - people still do it. Places where you get stoned for adultery- people still do it. Where you get hanged for killing - people still do it.

So does prison work? No. But that's not point or the problem. The problem is that rehabilitation in most cases don't work.

Sorry if I'm repeating others but I'm just rambling :0)

[jake-the-peg]

To suggest that long sentences rather than detection will reduce crime, simply flies in the face of the evidence.

Average sentences have been getting longer over the past decade

Countries such as the US with a death sentence do not see a reduction in capital crimes.

etc. etc.

If you really want to reduce reoffending then you have to provide much more help to those people who want to go straight coming out but lapse due to the fact that they've nowhere to live, no money no chance of a job.

That's not popular because people want to vent their righteous indignation about "criminals" and "punishment" but until it's done you'll continue to see high reoffending rates.

My prescription for cases like theft, drug dealing etc. especially first offences:

Better detection: shorter sentences in harder conditions and better support on parole

Hell's bells that's awfully close to the "short sharp shock"! - Hope I'm not turning into a Tory!

[snoteater]

Small, quiet point: they are not anonymous.

[Ding-Dong]

Yep, I can get on board with that - give them a very nasty shock after getting caught the first time - like the old boot camp days - and then perhaps they won't re-offend.

I am a dyed in the wool Tory Jake, and it sounds that you might be having a hint of blue around the edges!!!

[jake-the-peg]

:cp

[scotty]

In my humble opinion Ding dong is right . Haven't got much to disagree with there! Prison should work in that the scumbags are off the street, so that law-abiding citizens can live a normal life. Build more prisons , forget about rehabilitation, lock 'em up for long hard stretches. Singapore is a classic example of hard laws followed by harsh sentences; so too is Saudi where the stonings and amputations hardly ever take place because there is so little crime;the reason being you could lose your hand,so you don't steal.

I think that justice not vengeance is the answer to the original question, I don't care if it works or not, because I live in a law abiding way  , but if some ******* kills my daughter I want him inside forever , 'cos if he gets out I shall be the one doing time for his murder.

[Ward-Minter]

Bring back boot camp. Also start a McCarthy style witch hunt to weed out the do-gooding communist Taliban loving, pro-kiddy fiddling work shy peasants that befall our British masses. Then burn them alive. Slowly and painfully.

 

Further, I have said this before on here, instead of prison why not experiment on convicted pedos/rapists etc on cancer or AIDS research. That way they will at least be putting something back into society and it will save the lives of innocent animals. I am sure "live" humans will be excellent "guinnea pigs".

[blondegirly]

What an ill informed rant it was that started off this discussion.  as someone ssaid mob justice never did anyone any good.  sentences to satisfy people's bloodlust woudl be horrifically unfair.  the democratically elected, altho frequently useless Government sets the maximum tarriff for most offences, the Judges then have a limited discretion in Court to pass sentence.  if they are too lenient or too harsh then either side appeals and it goes to the cOurt of appeal.  there are guidelines on sentence which are available for most people to access.  Judges have so much experience in this rather than just an emotional reactionary response to the cry of the crowd.  What the crowd din't know about is the circumstances of the offence and the background of the defendant which is fully explored by the Court and Probation service.  What annoys me in my job in criminal defence is those people who mouth off without thinking how horrific it is to be deprived of your liberty for even a few days.  to be on lock up 18 hours a day.  My sister who works in prisons says you can't think at night for the screaming and crying. 

And you can regularly see people doing their community punishment every sunday in my area, and a local roundabout is maintained by the yout h offending team. 

at the end of the day it depends if you see the role of prison etc as punishment or rehabilitation or as a mixture of both, which is waht the Courts aim at.  it does not serve society if there is not going to be some attempt to address the cause of the offending.

let he who is without blame cast the first stone.

for those pedants out there apologies if my grammer is not up to scratch