They all go on about reoffending rates. Well, murderers and rapists who are serving real life terms and who are executed don't tend to reoffend....

I suspect *that* has got precisely nothing to do with serving waffles to sex offenders in the afternoon lest they get a bit peckish.

Well on one hand they lock up far fewer people than we do, but at the same time the ones that they DO lock up are far less likely to reoffend (recidivism rates are c.20% there, compared to our 40%).

Seems strange to be so outraged at a criminal justice system that is actually very effective.

So, you can prove that "harsh prison doesn't deter serious crime"?

And why is that exactly? There is no real reason for that to be the case. Norway has a not dissimilar standard of living, 13 percent of the population is either foreign born or first generation (compared to 8.3 percent in the UK); the only difference is that it's about one tenth the size. What are your reasons for thinking that criminality in Norway is so different to here?

Prison deters a lot of crime. Fear of going to prison keeps the majority of people on the straight and narrow, as evidenced by the fact the majority of people do not commit crime. You only need to look at third world countries to see what kind of chaos the UK would descend into if the all the prisons were closed down.

The few who do end up in prison are a minority who believe the risk / reward ratio is worth it.

The re-offending rate is high because prison offers criminals many things their lives are lacking on the outside, such as routine, stability, and relative safety. So while prison itself may be physically cold and forbidding, the stable prison routine can actually make prison a safe and mentally comfortable place to be compared with their everyday lives.

It would be interesting to see statistics on family breakdown in Norway and how their education system compares with ours.

I'm not so sure that' the case, more that the thought process is not as developed as it should be, coupled with a majority of hopeless drug offendrs, although, the main thrust of what you say is common sense to me.

I often wonder why the desire for retribution in relatively minor crimes (burglary, theft, assault) outweighs the logical will for rehabilitation in the penal system. Surely it's better to correct than punish where possible to reduce the burden on society before & after crime?

Clearly those beyond the pale should have their bks speared on the wall in time honoured fashion, before you call me a huggy fluff.

Incidentally, Norway is the prison regime of choice for the majority convicted defendants from the ICC, where a choice of country is offered as part of the process.

Yep.

"I think the fact that there are pretty massive geographical and historical correlations between 'more punishment' and 'more crime', demonstrates (at the very least) that retributive "justice" achieves little more than a maturbatory sense of satisfaction in people who want a socially acceptable way to cause and observe suffering. If punishment deters crime, I guess the middle ages must have been a crime/violence free utopia.

Most people nowadays have flat screen TVs - I'm guessing the prisoners aren't getting 42" 3D plasmas by default. People need to understand that access to TV, a playstation and mars bars does not equal 'living like royalty'. Yes, prisons provide conditions - especially this one - provide conditions better than what some experience outside. But no matter how you treat them there will always be someone worse off.

If you're going to hold someone against their will (and there are rational reasons to do so if they can reasonably be considered dangerous), then I think you're obliged to at least provide them with a comfortable living. Prisoners should be treated like we'd treat any dependent. The fact that these people caused suffering doesn't justify the state doing the same - unless you buy into the childish idea of "they did it first, they started it!" ...which, sadly, seems to be the basis of our fundamental understanding of "justice" in the UK."

OK.

Link one is about capital punishment and has no relevance (I do not support capital punishment, by the way).

Link two states: "Though small sample sizes limit the precision of our estimates"

Link three states: "Though they are not always precisely estimated".

There appears to be a theme developing...

I worked for about six years in the UK prison system. The inmates would piss themselves laughing if they thought that these were the conditions they faced.

This is a good example of evidence based politics: although not popular, a focus on re-rehabilitation rather than punishment always produces the best long term outcome.

Yes, you can bang on about the victims of crime, etc., but the point is this - over time, these prisoners will be trained with vocational qualifications, have somewhere to go when released, and 80% odd will go on to be contributing citizens.

I think Halden does go too far, but a compromise position surely would make sense...