Norwegian prison system
Discussion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/25/norw...
Is such a prison a possibility in the UK?
I can't see any real problems with it, apart from a perceived lack of justice. Only 16% of prisoners reoffend, which on a societal level is amazingly positive.
Prisoners are people. They might have had rough upbringings, made great mistakes in life and done terrible things, but if we genuinely expect them to be able to live in societ after being released then we have to teach them how to live within society. That means helping them to understand the notions of respect, accountability, not being threatening etc.
Treat prisoners like animals and it will only serve to make them act like animals. On the outside they will feel more defensive and threatened by society and only go on to make themselves more marginalised / dangerous.
Unfortunately I can't see such a system happening anytime soon in the UK, not as long as we follow the American way, which in my opinion is based around short-termist reactionary thinking (hell, its part of the culture, just look at how the economic system was run).
Its a shame, because to me the Norwegian way seems quite positive as far as the larger picture is concerned.
Is such a prison a possibility in the UK?
I can't see any real problems with it, apart from a perceived lack of justice. Only 16% of prisoners reoffend, which on a societal level is amazingly positive.
Prisoners are people. They might have had rough upbringings, made great mistakes in life and done terrible things, but if we genuinely expect them to be able to live in societ after being released then we have to teach them how to live within society. That means helping them to understand the notions of respect, accountability, not being threatening etc.
Treat prisoners like animals and it will only serve to make them act like animals. On the outside they will feel more defensive and threatened by society and only go on to make themselves more marginalised / dangerous.
Unfortunately I can't see such a system happening anytime soon in the UK, not as long as we follow the American way, which in my opinion is based around short-termist reactionary thinking (hell, its part of the culture, just look at how the economic system was run).
Its a shame, because to me the Norwegian way seems quite positive as far as the larger picture is concerned.
There is little doubt, no doubt really, that the British system regarding punishment is failing and has failed for some years, this despite us imprisoning a considerably higher percentage of the population than most other Western countries. Further our prison conditions are at best average.
You have to ask what prison is for, why we imprison people. If it is merely punishment then they can be little argument again that they are being punished. Whether for long enough is open to question. However if it is deterrence then unfortunately our system seems to encourage recidivism. If it is to protect the public then the system fails the public time and time again.
Our system is expensive. Despite the low levels of manpower and supervision, and the lack of courses available to many inmates, we still spend far too much on our prisons.
Whether or not the Norwegian system would work in this country is arguable. What is not is that their one seems to suit their country's needs whilst our one seems the fail everybody.
My theory is that we should find some other way to punish offenders other than incarceration. Prison should be retained for those who are a danger to the public or those who have shown themselves repeatedly to have no concern for society. My belief is that most prisoners should be released whilst a considerable number, those for whom criminality is a way of life those who have shown themselves to have no regard for the rights of others, should get considerably longer sentences.
I reckon that there would be fewer prisoners which would release money to be used to punish offenders by alternative methods which don't cost the taxpayer a fortune.
You have to ask what prison is for, why we imprison people. If it is merely punishment then they can be little argument again that they are being punished. Whether for long enough is open to question. However if it is deterrence then unfortunately our system seems to encourage recidivism. If it is to protect the public then the system fails the public time and time again.
Our system is expensive. Despite the low levels of manpower and supervision, and the lack of courses available to many inmates, we still spend far too much on our prisons.
Whether or not the Norwegian system would work in this country is arguable. What is not is that their one seems to suit their country's needs whilst our one seems the fail everybody.
My theory is that we should find some other way to punish offenders other than incarceration. Prison should be retained for those who are a danger to the public or those who have shown themselves repeatedly to have no concern for society. My belief is that most prisoners should be released whilst a considerable number, those for whom criminality is a way of life those who have shown themselves to have no regard for the rights of others, should get considerably longer sentences.
I reckon that there would be fewer prisoners which would release money to be used to punish offenders by alternative methods which don't cost the taxpayer a fortune.
grumbledoak said:
Shay HTFC said:
Eh? Its not about where they were born, its about what happens after they come out.
Did they compare Norway with Singapore? Or were they just cherry picking some statistics that suited their pre-determined conclusion? I'm not sure but I can guess.grumbledoak said:
You'll no doubt be shocked to hear that it isn't. Hateful rags, both.
Theres a piece in the Economist ( http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/... ) as well as Time ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2... ) if they are any more suited to you?Ironically, its that bastion of enlightened and logical thought, Fox News (video on the Economist link) , that is most critical of the system.
Derek Smith said:
There is little doubt, no doubt really, that the British system regarding punishment is failing and has failed for some years, this despite us imprisoning a considerably higher percentage of the population than most other Western countries. Further our prison conditions are at best average.
You have to ask what prison is for, why we imprison people. If it is merely punishment then they can be little argument again that they are being punished. Whether for long enough is open to question. However if it is deterrence then unfortunately our system seems to encourage recidivism. If it is to protect the public then the system fails the public time and time again.
Our system is expensive. Despite the low levels of manpower and supervision, and the lack of courses available to many inmates, we still spend far too much on our prisons.
Whether or not the Norwegian system would work in this country is arguable. What is not is that their one seems to suit their country's needs whilst our one seems the fail everybody.
My theory is that we should find some other way to punish offenders other than incarceration. Prison should be retained for those who are a danger to the public or those who have shown themselves repeatedly to have no concern for society. My belief is that most prisoners should be released whilst a considerable number, those for whom criminality is a way of life those who have shown themselves to have no regard for the rights of others, should get considerably longer sentences.
I reckon that there would be fewer prisoners which would release money to be used to punish offenders by alternative methods which don't cost the taxpayer a fortune.
I agree a lot. Save locking up for when it proves to be the only way to prevent someone causing further harm (whether it's murder or persistent repeated dangerous conduct of some sort), don't use it for anything else, it's too expensive to be worth it as a punishment - punishes the taxpayer as much as anything else. You have to ask what prison is for, why we imprison people. If it is merely punishment then they can be little argument again that they are being punished. Whether for long enough is open to question. However if it is deterrence then unfortunately our system seems to encourage recidivism. If it is to protect the public then the system fails the public time and time again.
Our system is expensive. Despite the low levels of manpower and supervision, and the lack of courses available to many inmates, we still spend far too much on our prisons.
Whether or not the Norwegian system would work in this country is arguable. What is not is that their one seems to suit their country's needs whilst our one seems the fail everybody.
My theory is that we should find some other way to punish offenders other than incarceration. Prison should be retained for those who are a danger to the public or those who have shown themselves repeatedly to have no concern for society. My belief is that most prisoners should be released whilst a considerable number, those for whom criminality is a way of life those who have shown themselves to have no regard for the rights of others, should get considerably longer sentences.
I reckon that there would be fewer prisoners which would release money to be used to punish offenders by alternative methods which don't cost the taxpayer a fortune.
Only question is then what DOES work as punishment/deterrent. Community service is pretty expensive to administer too...
Caulkhead said:
I expect the taxpayers of Norway really relish the comfort criminals live in tax free when they hand over 60% of their hard-earned to the government.
Except that upon completing their sentences, said criminals are vastly more likely to become contributing members of society and help pay their own bills than are any of ours in the UK.BlackVanDyke said:
I agree a lot. Save locking up for when it proves to be the only way to prevent someone causing further harm (whether it's murder or persistent repeated dangerous conduct of some sort), don't use it for anything else, it's too expensive to be worth it as a punishment - punishes the taxpayer as much as anything else.
Only question is then what DOES work as punishment/deterrent. Community service is pretty expensive to administer too...
It is unfortunate that the government has just signed a multi-year contract with a tagging company, this despite the fact that tagging has proved less than adequately effective. So that seems to be the intent of the current home sec.Only question is then what DOES work as punishment/deterrent. Community service is pretty expensive to administer too...
I see some form of day release as being effective. If an offender is in work that they should attend after they knock off and if they are not in employment that they should be given a job stacking shelves at Tescos.
It is pointless coming up with a perfect system though as no one will be interested. There are no votes to be gained by letting people out of prison.
The idea of prison as a punishment is quite a recent one of course. It used to just be the place where you waited until your actual punishment (fine/stocks/transportation/hanging etc) was handed down.
The exception was debtors' prison, but that was a rather different system and was designed to keep the debtor in one place until his debt was cleared.
The exception was debtors' prison, but that was a rather different system and was designed to keep the debtor in one place until his debt was cleared.
BlackVanDyke said:
Derek Smith said:
There is little doubt, no doubt really, that the British system regarding punishment is failing and has failed for some years, this despite us imprisoning a considerably higher percentage of the population than most other Western countries. Further our prison conditions are at best average.
You have to ask what prison is for, why we imprison people. If it is merely punishment then they can be little argument again that they are being punished. Whether for long enough is open to question. However if it is deterrence then unfortunately our system seems to encourage recidivism. If it is to protect the public then the system fails the public time and time again.
Our system is expensive. Despite the low levels of manpower and supervision, and the lack of courses available to many inmates, we still spend far too much on our prisons.
Whether or not the Norwegian system would work in this country is arguable. What is not is that their one seems to suit their country's needs whilst our one seems the fail everybody.
My theory is that we should find some other way to punish offenders other than incarceration. Prison should be retained for those who are a danger to the public or those who have shown themselves repeatedly to have no concern for society. My belief is that most prisoners should be released whilst a considerable number, those for whom criminality is a way of life those who have shown themselves to have no regard for the rights of others, should get considerably longer sentences.
I reckon that there would be fewer prisoners which would release money to be used to punish offenders by alternative methods which don't cost the taxpayer a fortune.
I agree a lot. Save locking up for when it proves to be the only way to prevent someone causing further harm (whether it's murder or persistent repeated dangerous conduct of some sort), don't use it for anything else, it's too expensive to be worth it as a punishment - punishes the taxpayer as much as anything else. You have to ask what prison is for, why we imprison people. If it is merely punishment then they can be little argument again that they are being punished. Whether for long enough is open to question. However if it is deterrence then unfortunately our system seems to encourage recidivism. If it is to protect the public then the system fails the public time and time again.
Our system is expensive. Despite the low levels of manpower and supervision, and the lack of courses available to many inmates, we still spend far too much on our prisons.
Whether or not the Norwegian system would work in this country is arguable. What is not is that their one seems to suit their country's needs whilst our one seems the fail everybody.
My theory is that we should find some other way to punish offenders other than incarceration. Prison should be retained for those who are a danger to the public or those who have shown themselves repeatedly to have no concern for society. My belief is that most prisoners should be released whilst a considerable number, those for whom criminality is a way of life those who have shown themselves to have no regard for the rights of others, should get considerably longer sentences.
I reckon that there would be fewer prisoners which would release money to be used to punish offenders by alternative methods which don't cost the taxpayer a fortune.
Only question is then what DOES work as punishment/deterrent. Community service is pretty expensive to administer too...
Whether you want to argue the toss for legalisation or not, IMO the problem here is the addiction and the apparent inability of our prison system to prevent drink and drugs getting into the buildings. If someone is an addict, they will be pretty-much unemployable once they come out of prison.
IMO (and I'm well-aware this would cost more than our current system, but in the long term would end up costing us a lot less) prisons should come in two 'strengths'.
The type we've got now should be for lifers or long-termers. Genuine dangers to society, the people who we lock up and throw away the proverbial key. Serial killers, rapists, organised-crime masterminds - that sort of calculating, cold criminal sociopath who we separate from society for society's own good.
The other type I'd suggest would be a kind of half-prison, half-hospital. A completely secure hospital, if you will. Drug and alcohol addiction, a lack of qualifications etc have been identified time and again as the root-cause of criminal behaviour.
So what would happen is effectively an expansion/institutionalisation of the existing Rehabilitation Order. Problem with the RO is that it's too easily abused (someone hooked on heroin gets methodone from pharmacist, sells it on the street, buys stronger heroin, the problem continues, there's no secure structured conditions to make sure the programme works). What I'd suggest would be that people would be confined in these places, subject to ongoing medical attention and education, until they're fit to be released.
They'd emerge completely 'clean' and educated to a standard that should net them a job. I'd also suggest that, as a payoff, if they completed the secure rehabilitation programme, their criminal record would be wiped, so not to prejudice their chances with prospective employers.
Because it seems to me that we've got two types of prisoners - the sort who need locking up for their and our own good, and the sort who need teaching a very thorough lesson (and, dare I suggest, the care and attention that their parents should have given them but never bothered with). Problem is, at the moment the latter type get locked up with the former type and come out more addicted, disillusioned and criminally-minded than they were when they went in as a result.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff