Calls to cut prison population by half

CheltenhamHacker said:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12
Click to expand...

Seems to work in the Netherlands too, where they're closing prisons because they have too many. There's more than one aspects to their declining prison population, but this article has one key statistic:

... some persistent offenders - known in the trade as "revolving-door criminals" - are eventually given two-year sentences and tailor-made rehabilitation programmes. Fewer than 10% then return to prison after their release.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37904263
 
Not sure how to stop criminals reoffending. But, I'd certainly utilise them more. Especially the petty crimes.

It costs how how much to house each of them? I'd say all basics criminals get an hour of outside time, 3 square meals and a bed to sleep on and pot in the corner.

How to people on the outside cope if they have no income?

then let them be productive. Reward them for working. How many basic jobs could be done by these people?

wifi? Tv? Food other than basic rations should be perks.

If if you commit a crime your life should get worse. And I have no sympathy for most of them inside.
 
Oxfordcomma said:
Seems to work in the Netherlands too, where they're closing prisons because they have too many. There's more than one aspects to their declining prison population, but this article has one key statistic:

... some persistent offenders - known in the trade as "revolving-door criminals" - are eventually given two-year sentences and tailor-made rehabilitation programmes. Fewer than 10% then return to prison after their release.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37904263
Click to expand...

They should keep them open and we should send our 'revolving criminals' over there if their programme is so good and effective.
 
Make it penal and not a taxpayer burden with wif fi, TV's etc. make it hard and unpleasant if you go to prison and hopefully many won't want to go back again. There has to be more common senses at courts (hard to imagine) when it comes to sentencing. Make the sentence a deterrent within the existing guidelines and look for better options rather than making prison a default option
 
Lord Tyrion said:
Actually sounds a pretty sensible idea. May have been said in jest, maybe not, but why not outsource it?
Click to expand...

I've read elsewhere that the Netherlands does already have this arrangement with some other countries! I think that's maybe just renting the prison space, but if the rehabilitation is working for them then why not get them to do that too? Got to be cheaper for us and more productive in the long run.
 
drive4show said:
Sorry but I think this namby pamby type of attitude is exactly the reason we have full prisons. Give out a punishment that fits the crime and people will think twice.
Click to expand...

Read my post again. I was simply stating that if you really want to tackle the problem, then that is what would be needed. It will obviously never happen......for the reasons I stated. As others have said (with some good links), the deterrent value of longer sentences is a fallacy.....it simply doesn't work. Most of these people are incapable of rational thought half the time. They don't "think" once never mind twice.

Another fallacy is that life is cushty in prison. Sure, there are examples but for the vast majority it simply isn't.
 
Rehabilitation is a worthy goal if it is possible but people sent to prison are also there to be punished. Are people here suggesting there should be no punishment other than loss of liberty.

I said earlier that IMO there are too many people sent to prison for non-violent crimes where the criminal is not a direct threat to the community, these should be dealt with by tagging and being given community work. Others need to be punished first and rehabilitated second. Let them earn privileges by hard labour, anyone who is a threat to other prisoners should be isolated so they don't bully and intimidate others. Help can also be given for training and education but if abused then the alternative should not be pleasant or soft-line.
 
SocketRocket said:
Rehabilitation is a worthy goal if it is possible but people sent to prison are also there to be punished. Are people here suggesting there should be no punishment other than loss of liberty.

I said earlier that IMO there are too many people sent to prison for non-violent crimes where the criminal is not a direct threat to the community, these should be dealt with by tagging and being given community work. Others need to be punished first and rehabilitated second. Let them earn privileges by hard labour, anyone who is a threat to other prisoners should be isolated so they don't bully and intimidate others. Help can also be given for training and education but if abused then the alternative should not be pleasant or soft-line.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with everything there but think you're right on several of the points. I've always thought that the criminal justice system needs to achieve three things:
1) Protect society. Make sure that dangerous people are removed from general circulation for a period.
2) Punish/deter. You do something bad, something bad is going to happen to you. Hopefully for many that is a deterrent as well.
3) Prevent. And that's the bit we're all talking about, isn't it, rehabilitation? Not a huge amount of benefit locking someone up for 6 months or 2 years if they are then released as exactly the same violent or dangerous person. We spend a shedload of tax money, and we just defer the issue for a few months. If we can learn from other countries and fix that part, stop the repeat offending, then suddenly a huge proportion of the people needing points 1 and 2 goes away. Thought the stuff Gove was saying when he was in charge of justice before the referendum was interesting, he came to it from looking at models being tried in the US where some very right-wing states have discovered that it's a lot cheaper to try and fix people than it is to lock them up.
 
It can and probably should be done but certainly not by just releasing half or putting less in jail.

It can only be done by cutting reoffending rates and stopping preventable crimes from happening back at the source, the community and social situations.

It cannot happen instantly and will take decades.

The only thing is can we afford it plus current prison costs? For a long time, until prison costs reduce due to the reduction in offending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top