Norwegian prison system
Discussion
dandarez said:
Shay HTFC said:
Treat prisoners like animals and it will only serve to make them act like animals.
You could be correct. Let's face it, animals do usually return to their den.
Is that why prison to many of them is really 'home', and why many don't seem to give a s
t about being sent back (home) either?Sod views of good and evil - if someone's in the dock, there's a pretty good (not 100%) chance they're very bad at working out and doing what's best for them in the long run. Otherwise they wouldn't be there. And you expect them, years later, probably surrounded by the same friends, and with a criminal record making it far harder to earn a decent living, to stand a better chance? That's... optimistic. Rant and scream all you want, it won't change the fact that they're morons who won't be able to contribute to society unless you make it easy for them to do so.
Derek Smith said:
Not what I said. I'm willing to support my contention - isn't that the point of these forums - but it has to be a sensible challenge.
The problem is that for the last 30-40 years we've tried to find the solution to repeat offenders and nothing has worked.We now have the dumbest sentencing guidelines ever, we have a Police who are giving out cautions to quite serious assaults, we have people disrespecting the Police to their faces, and so forth. And none of this has solved the problem.
We need to admit that the whole experiment of trying to fix repeat offenders has horribly failed.
hairykrishna said:
There's little evidence that harsh, long, prison sentences work either as a deterrent or discourage people from re-offending.
If a burglar is given a long enough sentence, we don't have to worry about re-offending. Why is it so difficult for people to put protecting the public as #1 priority?hairykrishna said:
There's little evidence that harsh, long, prison sentences work either as a deterrent or discourage people from re-offending.
Here's an example for you. Had Roy Whiting been jailed for 4 years (the correct - but still ludicrously low sentence) for kidnapping a girl back in 2000 or so, a friends daughter would still be alive today. He was jailed for 2 years because the judge decided to be lenient.It may not have discouraged him from re-offending, but at least the girl he murdered would still be alive.
At the risk of provoking a mildly stimulating debate on PH, may I offer;
1) The nature of deterrence - why does it not work more often? Criminals know prison awaits as and when they get unlucky/sloppy/slow. It does not deter them from thievery, apparently. Consider - the penalty for not wearing your seatbelt is a fine, although there is a strong chance you'll be brown-bread in a nasty collision, and in my experience many people who drive less than optimally also neglect the wearing of seatbelts. You only have to be unlucky once...
2) What is prison for? Retraining? Incarceration? Bit of both? The more I hear about it the more it seems to have parallels with education (what is it for etc etc). Certainly the inmates shown on ITV at Aylesbury could use some good education, and some of them also need locking up.
3) Drugs. Prisons should be capable of becoming drug free. Then maybe we can help the addicts.
Perhaps the once size fits all approach is the problem - we need prisoner-centred-gaols.
1) The nature of deterrence - why does it not work more often? Criminals know prison awaits as and when they get unlucky/sloppy/slow. It does not deter them from thievery, apparently. Consider - the penalty for not wearing your seatbelt is a fine, although there is a strong chance you'll be brown-bread in a nasty collision, and in my experience many people who drive less than optimally also neglect the wearing of seatbelts. You only have to be unlucky once...
2) What is prison for? Retraining? Incarceration? Bit of both? The more I hear about it the more it seems to have parallels with education (what is it for etc etc). Certainly the inmates shown on ITV at Aylesbury could use some good education, and some of them also need locking up.
3) Drugs. Prisons should be capable of becoming drug free. Then maybe we can help the addicts.
Perhaps the once size fits all approach is the problem - we need prisoner-centred-gaols.
JDRoest said:
hairykrishna said:
There's little evidence that harsh, long, prison sentences work either as a deterrent or discourage people from re-offending.
If a burglar is given a long enough sentence, we don't have to worry about re-offending. Why is it so difficult for people to put protecting the public as #1 priority?Definitely valid to ask what we want from the prison system. For me it's pretty much in this order:
1) Protection of the public.
Clear number one for me. So long as someone poses a serious risk to the public they should be locked up. And while psychologists reports and parole hearings might have a role to play I firmly believe that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. If someone has proven themselves to be incapable of living in a free society without harming others then they should not be allowed back into that free society.
2) Punishment
Not in a biblical eye for an eye sense, now should prisons be run by sadistic little Hitlers who delight in dishing out cruel and degrading treatment to inmates. However it should be sufficiently spartan uncomfortable to provide a deterrent to going there. The sentences also need to be of a sufficient length to make the loss of liberty the main punishment.
3) Rehabilitation
When the above conditions are met then education programmes and so forth should be made available.
1) Protection of the public.
Clear number one for me. So long as someone poses a serious risk to the public they should be locked up. And while psychologists reports and parole hearings might have a role to play I firmly believe that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. If someone has proven themselves to be incapable of living in a free society without harming others then they should not be allowed back into that free society.
2) Punishment
Not in a biblical eye for an eye sense, now should prisons be run by sadistic little Hitlers who delight in dishing out cruel and degrading treatment to inmates. However it should be sufficiently spartan uncomfortable to provide a deterrent to going there. The sentences also need to be of a sufficient length to make the loss of liberty the main punishment.
3) Rehabilitation
When the above conditions are met then education programmes and so forth should be made available.
grumbledoak said:
hairykrishna said:
If it did there would be a strong correlation between countries with harsh prison regimes and low crime rates.
Faulty assertion. As is the assertion that Norway's seemingly easy prison regime and low indigenous crime rate are related.The Don of Croy said:
At the risk of provoking a mildly stimulating debate on PH, may I offer;
1) The nature of deterrence - why does it not work more often? Criminals know prison awaits as and when they get unlucky/sloppy/slow. It does not deter them from thievery, apparently. Consider - the penalty for not wearing your seatbelt is a fine, although there is a strong chance you'll be brown-bread in a nasty collision, and in my experience many people who drive less than optimally also neglect the wearing of seatbelts. You only have to be unlucky once...
2) What is prison for? Retraining? Incarceration? Bit of both? The more I hear about it the more it seems to have parallels with education (what is it for etc etc). Certainly the inmates shown on ITV at Aylesbury could use some good education, and some of them also need locking up.
3) Drugs. Prisons should be capable of becoming drug free. Then maybe we can help the addicts.
Perhaps the once size fits all approach is the problem - we need prisoner-centred-gaols.
The threat of prison does not deter. This has been proved so often and regularly that when I hear Home Secs saying that it does you know at once that they have no idea and are just playing politics until they get some other post.1) The nature of deterrence - why does it not work more often? Criminals know prison awaits as and when they get unlucky/sloppy/slow. It does not deter them from thievery, apparently. Consider - the penalty for not wearing your seatbelt is a fine, although there is a strong chance you'll be brown-bread in a nasty collision, and in my experience many people who drive less than optimally also neglect the wearing of seatbelts. You only have to be unlucky once...
2) What is prison for? Retraining? Incarceration? Bit of both? The more I hear about it the more it seems to have parallels with education (what is it for etc etc). Certainly the inmates shown on ITV at Aylesbury could use some good education, and some of them also need locking up.
3) Drugs. Prisons should be capable of becoming drug free. Then maybe we can help the addicts.
Perhaps the once size fits all approach is the problem - we need prisoner-centred-gaols.
Your point about seatbelts is a good one. Along the same lines is driving on motorways in fog. The threat of hideous death, crashing at speed into an unseen obstruction and injuring yourself and others does not slow drivers. I went to a lecture on a massive motorway accident and in the Q&A following the skipper in charge was asked what the answer was and he suggested harsher penalties. When it was pointed out that, a/ no one had been prosecuted for careless/reckless (as was then) driving despite 5(ish) deaths and multiple serious injuries, and b/ what could be harsher than the 5(ish) deaths and multiple serious injuries.
What does slow drivers is speed cameras. In other words, as has also been shown by research, what deters offenders is the likelihood of being caught, even if the penalty is likely to be mild. It sounds illogical, and probably is, but then people are illogical in their actions.
My thought on 2) is that prison should be used primarily to protect the public. Everything else should be secondary.
3) I'm not sure it is possible to keep prisons drug free.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff