Why do we still put people in prison?

[Lumpenproletariat]

We need a NIP IT IN THE BUD solution. Something beyond just more "prison reform"

First, we need to recognize that it's YOUNG MALES who commit virtually all the serious crimes, including atrocities, war crimes, terrorism, etc. So something has to be done about young males.

solution: implant a device/transponder/gadget into every male child's body that monitors his movement and behavior and which cannot be removed, and which allows watchers to transmit corrective signals (or whatever steps are needed) when the child/boy/teenager/young man begins to engage in destructive behavior. (Maybe the device could be removed when the subject reaches age 40 or so.)

This device has to be implanted into ALL young males, without exception, not just convicted criminals. And it needs to begin early, before age 10. It should be done worldwide. The countries which protest against it the most are probably the countries that most need it.

It might require a period of research to produce a suitable device, but the technology for this probably already exists, or at least the scientific principles, which engineers could develop for this purpose.

Drastic problems require drastic measures. This is a serious solution. The research should begin ASAP, if it hasn't begun already. Once these have been implanted into most young males for several years, a vast amount of the world's human-caused problems would be fixed.

I've got a better idea - let's just reform the penal codes so when they get outside the prison gates they'll say, with feeling, 'Never, never again!' Sorted!

That's what we've been doing. It's unlikely that we can improve on it, even if theoretically prisons could be made more effective.

Something new and more drastic needs to be tried.

 

[bilby]

First, we need to recognize that it's YOUNG MALES who commit virtually all the serious crimes, including atrocities, war crimes, terrorism, etc. So something has to be done about young males.

solution: implant a device/transponder/gadget into every male child's body that monitors his movement and behavior and which cannot be removed, and which allows watchers to transmit corrective signals (or whatever steps are needed) when the child/boy/teenager/young man begins to engage in destructive behavior. (Maybe the device could be removed when the subject reaches age 40 or so.)

This device has to be implanted into ALL young males, without exception, not just convicted criminals. And it needs to begin early, before age 10. It should be done worldwide. The countries which protest against it the most are probably the countries that most need it.

It might require a period of research to produce a suitable device, but the technology for this probably already exists, or at least the scientific principles, which engineers could develop for this purpose.

Drastic problems require drastic measures. This is a serious solution. The research should begin ASAP, if it hasn't begun already. Once these have been implanted into most young males for several years, a vast amount of the world's human-caused problems would be fixed.

I've got a better idea - let's just reform the penal codes so when they get outside the prison gates they'll say, with feeling, 'Never, never again!' Sorted!

It's a shit idea. It was tried in the Soviet Union in the 1930s; those who survived imprisonment under that regime most certainly didn't want to return (see Crime and social disorder in Stalin's Russia [A reassessment of the Great Retreat and the origins of mass repression] Shearer, 1998); yet crime rates were very high.

All the criminological research shows the 'common sense' idea - that long sentences in unpleasant conditions will deter crime - to be completely wrong.

Your suggested methods would be unethical if they worked. As we know that they don't, they are downright psychopathic.

 

[bilby]

I've got a better idea - let's just reform the penal codes so when they get outside the prison gates they'll say, with feeling, 'Never, never again!' Sorted!

That's what we've been doing. It's unlikely that we can improve on it, even if theoretically prisons could be made more effective.

Something new and more drastic needs to be tried.

Sure. If what we are doing isn't working, clearly we need to do even more of it.

 

[bilby]

Yes, but I grew up in the UK.

Society’s scum – and every society has them – make our lives a misery with their anti-social, through aggressive, threatening, to psychopathic propensities, and yet you fret for their comfort as if they’re the victims of society rather than their victims have been at their hands.

You seem to think that it is impossible for perpetrators to also be victims. That is a common error, but an error nonetheless.

They don’t care about you, so why the fuck do you care about them?

Because I aspire to be better than them, rather than descending to their level.
There isn't a shortage of people who don't care; I need not add to their ranks.

I simply do not know what makes you liberals tick.

An odd turn of phrase for a non-American. The word 'liberal' means something very different both here and in the UK from the way you appear to be using it. Are you an American?

Incidentally . . .

And that is the vast majority of criminals.

Oh really? 'Do you have a citation for that empty hyperbole'??

The suggestion that most criminals expect to successfully avoid prison at the time of their crimes is hardly hyperbolic, and is widely accepted by criminologists.

Doob and Webster's 2003 paper in Crime and Justice is a good place to start; the full paper is paywalled, but the abstract is clear:

The literature on the effects of sentence severity on crime levels has been reviewed numerous times in the past twenty-five years. Most reviews conclude that there is little or no consistent evidence that harsher sanctions reduce crime rates in Western populations. Nevertheless, most reviewers have been reluctant to conclude that variation in the severity of sentence does not have differential deterrent impacts. A reasonable assessment of the research to date-with a particular focus on studies conducted in the past decade-is that sentence severity has no effect on the level of crime in society. It is time to accept the null hypothesis.

Ah now that explains everything - so much self-righteous liberal** sanctimony expressed in so few words. 'Let's all feel more sorry for the convicted criminal than for his victim.'

** Or religious?

I don't think that basing one's opinion on peer reviewed research by relevantly qualified professionals is particularly a 'liberal' position, and it sure as shit isn't a religious one.

I think perhaps the word you are struggling for may be 'intellectual'.

I do note that you have time to attempt to pigeonhole me into a trite, one word description; but apparently do not have time to find and present any hard evidence for your claims.

I asked you for a reference, and I have provided references for my asserted position; now it's your turn.

 

[Cerberus]

I've got a better idea - let's just reform the penal codes so when they get outside the prison gates they'll say, with feeling, 'Never, never again!' Sorted!

It's a shit idea. It was tried in the Soviet Union in the 1930s; those who survived imprisonment under that regime most certainly didn't want to return (see Crime and social disorder in Stalin's Russia [A reassessment of the Great Retreat and the origins of mass repression] Shearer, 1998); yet crime rates were very high.

All the criminological research shows the 'common sense' idea - that long sentences in unpleasant conditions will deter crime - to be completely wrong.

Your methods would be unethical if they worked. As we know that they don't, they are downright psychopathic.

Well you would say that wouldn't you - you're a liberal, and churn out every meaningless mantra in The Bumper Book of Liberal Platitudes on Behalf Of The Poor Down-trodden Criminal. And I'm 'psychopathic'?? 'unethical' 'we know that they don't'!! - give me bloody strength!

 

[Cerberus]

Yes, but I grew up in the UK.

Society’s scum – and every society has them – make our lives a misery with their anti-social, through aggressive, threatening, to psychopathic propensities, and yet you fret for their comfort as if they’re the victims of society rather than their victims have been at their hands.

You seem to think that it is impossible for perpetrators to also be victims. That is a common error, but an error nonetheless.

They don’t care about you, so why the fuck do you care about them?

Because I aspire to be better than them, rather than descending to their level.
There isn't a shortage of people who don't care; I need not add to their ranks.

I simply do not know what makes you liberals tick.

An odd turn of phrase for a non-American. The word 'liberal' means something very different both here and in the UK from the way you appear to be using it. Are you an American?

Incidentally . . .

And that is the vast majority of criminals.

Oh really? 'Do you have a citation for that empty hyperbole'??

The suggestion that most criminals expect to successfully avoid prison at the time of their crimes is hardly hyperbolic, and is widely accepted by criminologists.

Doob and Webster's 2003 paper in Crime and Justice is a good place to start; the full paper is paywalled, but the abstract is clear:

The literature on the effects of sentence severity on crime levels has been reviewed numerous times in the past twenty-five years. Most reviews conclude that there is little or no consistent evidence that harsher sanctions reduce crime rates in Western populations. Nevertheless, most reviewers have been reluctant to conclude that variation in the severity of sentence does not have differential deterrent impacts. A reasonable assessment of the research to date-with a particular focus on studies conducted in the past decade-is that sentence severity has no effect on the level of crime in society. It is time to accept the null hypothesis.

Ah now that explains everything - so much self-righteous liberal** sanctimony expressed in so few words. 'Let's all feel more sorry for the convicted criminal than for his victim.'

** Or religious?

I don't think that basing one's opinion on peer reviewed research by relevantly qualified professionals is particularly a 'liberal' position, and it sure as shit isn't a religious one.

I think perhaps the word you are struggling for may be 'intellectual'.

I do note that you have time to attempt to pigeonhole me into a trite, one word description; but apparently do not have time to find and present any hard evidence for your claims.

I asked you for a reference, and I have provided references for my asserted position; now it's your turn.

"Prisons 'in worst state for a decade', inspector warns"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33517116

You asked for evidence - now you've got it!

 

[bilby]

It's a shit idea. It was tried in the Soviet Union in the 1930s; those who survived imprisonment under that regime most certainly didn't want to return (see Crime and social disorder in Stalin's Russia [A reassessment of the Great Retreat and the origins of mass repression] Shearer, 1998); yet crime rates were very high.

All the criminological research shows the 'common sense' idea - that long sentences in unpleasant conditions will deter crime - to be completely wrong.

Your methods would be unethical if they worked. As we know that they don't, they are downright psychopathic.

Well you would say that wouldn't you - you're a liberal, and churn out every meaningless mantra in The Bumper Book of Liberal Platitudes on Behalf Of The Poor Down-trodden Criminal. And I'm 'psychopathic'?? 'unethical' 'we know that they don't'!! - give me bloody strength!

Your responses are long on ad-hominem and very short on supporting research.

This isn't the YouTube comments section; around here you are expected to defend your assertions, not just dismiss or ignore those made by others.

 

[Cerberus]

Your responses are long on ad-hominem and very short on supporting research.

This isn't the YouTube comments section; around here you are expected to defend your assertions, not just dismiss or ignore those made by others.

I've just 'defended my assertions' with a link. I'll give you time to digest it, and maybe reflect on how things have changed here since you left? And it's all 'thanks' to a prolonged period of the liberal dogma - which causes almost as much social chaos and misery as does religion.

 

[bilby]

Yes, but I grew up in the UK.

Society’s scum – and every society has them – make our lives a misery with their anti-social, through aggressive, threatening, to psychopathic propensities, and yet you fret for their comfort as if they’re the victims of society rather than their victims have been at their hands.

You seem to think that it is impossible for perpetrators to also be victims. That is a common error, but an error nonetheless.

They don’t care about you, so why the fuck do you care about them?

Because I aspire to be better than them, rather than descending to their level.
There isn't a shortage of people who don't care; I need not add to their ranks.

I simply do not know what makes you liberals tick.

An odd turn of phrase for a non-American. The word 'liberal' means something very different both here and in the UK from the way you appear to be using it. Are you an American?

Incidentally . . .

And that is the vast majority of criminals.

Oh really? 'Do you have a citation for that empty hyperbole'??

The suggestion that most criminals expect to successfully avoid prison at the time of their crimes is hardly hyperbolic, and is widely accepted by criminologists.

Doob and Webster's 2003 paper in Crime and Justice is a good place to start; the full paper is paywalled, but the abstract is clear:

The literature on the effects of sentence severity on crime levels has been reviewed numerous times in the past twenty-five years. Most reviews conclude that there is little or no consistent evidence that harsher sanctions reduce crime rates in Western populations. Nevertheless, most reviewers have been reluctant to conclude that variation in the severity of sentence does not have differential deterrent impacts. A reasonable assessment of the research to date-with a particular focus on studies conducted in the past decade-is that sentence severity has no effect on the level of crime in society. It is time to accept the null hypothesis.

Ah now that explains everything - so much self-righteous liberal** sanctimony expressed in so few words. 'Let's all feel more sorry for the convicted criminal than for his victim.'

** Or religious?

I don't think that basing one's opinion on peer reviewed research by relevantly qualified professionals is particularly a 'liberal' position, and it sure as shit isn't a religious one.

I think perhaps the word you are struggling for may be 'intellectual'.

I do note that you have time to attempt to pigeonhole me into a trite, one word description; but apparently do not have time to find and present any hard evidence for your claims.

I asked you for a reference, and I have provided references for my asserted position; now it's your turn.

"Prisons 'in worst state for a decade', inspector warns"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33517116

You asked for evidence - now you've got it!

So you consider a news article highlighting the deteriorating conditions in UK prisons under the recent ConDem government (far from 'liberal' in the American sense), to be support for your assertion that liberalism is the problem; and as support for your assessment that prison is too soft to be an effective deterrent (despite implying the exact opposite - that prison is not a soft option at all); and as support for your claim that prison can be an effective deterrent, despite the article (from the renowned criminologists at the BBC) not addressing that question at all?

Bizarre.

 

[dystopian]

"Prisons 'in worst state for a decade', inspector warns"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33517116

You asked for evidence - now you've got it!

Uhm, that isn't actually evidence for what you said. You claimed there was rampant anarchy in the prisons. Nowhere in that article is that phrase used. All it says is that the prisons are in the worst state in terms of violence in a decade... which doesn't mean it's anywhere close to rampant anarchy. It also explains exactly this is the case and ironically states that the only way to reverse the worsening of conditions is to either spend more money or imprison fewer people, because the violence is happening because your country is *overcrowding* its prisons, not giving prisoners enough meaningful activity, and cutting prison staff by a third. This isn't happening because you're not tough enough on crime... it's happening *because* you're too tough on crime (and can't be bothered to spend enough money)

 

[Cerberus]

Yes, but I grew up in the UK.

Society’s scum – and every society has them – make our lives a misery with their anti-social, through aggressive, threatening, to psychopathic propensities, and yet you fret for their comfort as if they’re the victims of society rather than their victims have been at their hands.

You seem to think that it is impossible for perpetrators to also be victims. That is a common error, but an error nonetheless.

They don’t care about you, so why the fuck do you care about them?

Because I aspire to be better than them, rather than descending to their level.
There isn't a shortage of people who don't care; I need not add to their ranks.

I simply do not know what makes you liberals tick.

An odd turn of phrase for a non-American. The word 'liberal' means something very different both here and in the UK from the way you appear to be using it. Are you an American?

Incidentally . . .

And that is the vast majority of criminals.

Oh really? 'Do you have a citation for that empty hyperbole'??

The suggestion that most criminals expect to successfully avoid prison at the time of their crimes is hardly hyperbolic, and is widely accepted by criminologists.

Doob and Webster's 2003 paper in Crime and Justice is a good place to start; the full paper is paywalled, but the abstract is clear:

The literature on the effects of sentence severity on crime levels has been reviewed numerous times in the past twenty-five years. Most reviews conclude that there is little or no consistent evidence that harsher sanctions reduce crime rates in Western populations. Nevertheless, most reviewers have been reluctant to conclude that variation in the severity of sentence does not have differential deterrent impacts. A reasonable assessment of the research to date-with a particular focus on studies conducted in the past decade-is that sentence severity has no effect on the level of crime in society. It is time to accept the null hypothesis.

Ah now that explains everything - so much self-righteous liberal** sanctimony expressed in so few words. 'Let's all feel more sorry for the convicted criminal than for his victim.'

** Or religious?

I don't think that basing one's opinion on peer reviewed research by relevantly qualified professionals is particularly a 'liberal' position, and it sure as shit isn't a religious one.

I think perhaps the word you are struggling for may be 'intellectual'.

I do note that you have time to attempt to pigeonhole me into a trite, one word description; but apparently do not have time to find and present any hard evidence for your claims.

I asked you for a reference, and I have provided references for my asserted position; now it's your turn.

"Prisons 'in worst state for a decade', inspector warns"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33517116

You asked for evidence - now you've got it!

So you consider a news article highlighting the deteriorating conditions in UK prisons under the recent ConDem government (far from 'liberal' in the American sense), to be support for your assertion that liberalism is the problem; and as support for your assessment that prison is too soft to be an effective deterrent (despite implying the exact opposite - that prison is not a soft option at all); and as support for your claim that prison can be an effective deterrent, despite the article (from the renowned criminologists at the BBC) not addressing that question at all?

Bizarre.

And ne'er the twain shall meet! Talking to a liberal is like talking to an alien.

 

[dystopian]

Meanwhile, here in the Netherlands we are literally running out of criminals to put in our prisons due to falling crime rates. Our prisons are so empty that we're taking on Belgian and Norwegian prisoners just to keep the prison guards (who now outnumber the prisoners) employed.

Are we running out of criminals because we're tougher on crime than other countries? Well we might be I suppo-- oh wait, right, we're the *Netherlands*, of course we're not.

 

[Cerberus]

Meanwhile, here in the Netherlands we are literally running out of criminals to put in our prisons due to falling crime rates. Our prisons are so empty that we're taking on Belgian and Norwegian prisoners just to keep the prison guards (who now outnumber the prisoners) employed.

Are we running out of criminals because we're tougher on crime than other countries? Well we might be I suppo-- oh wait, right, we're the *Netherlands*, of course we're not.

Do you have a link for that please? I find it hard to believe.

 

[dystopian]

Meanwhile, here in the Netherlands we are literally running out of criminals to put in our prisons due to falling crime rates. Our prisons are so empty that we're taking on Belgian and Norwegian prisoners just to keep the prison guards (who now outnumber the prisoners) employed.

Are we running out of criminals because we're tougher on crime than other countries? Well we might be I suppo-- oh wait, right, we're the *Netherlands*, of course we're not.

Do you have a link for that please? I find it hard to believe.

Of course you do, reality has a well known liberal bias, after all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...eave-more-guards-than-prisoners-10081010.html
http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/...rlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...pty-jail-cells-to-ease-overcrowded-jails.html
http://www.trueactivist.com/netherlands-closing-19-prisons-due-to-lack-of-criminals/

I'm not sure why you find this hard to believe: the fact that the Netherlands has been experiencing a drastic reduction in crime and has been forced to close prisons/import prisoners has been known for years. *I* find it difficult to believe that someone with such a passionate opinion on prisons would not have been exposed to international reporting on this fact.

 

[Cerberus]

Do you have a link for that please? I find it hard to believe.

Of course you do, reality has a well known liberal bias, after all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...eave-more-guards-than-prisoners-10081010.html
http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/...rlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...pty-jail-cells-to-ease-overcrowded-jails.html
http://www.trueactivist.com/netherlands-closing-19-prisons-due-to-lack-of-criminals/

I'm not sure why you find this hard to believe: the fact that the Netherlands has been experiencing a drastic reduction in crime and has been forced to close prisons/import prisoners has been known for years. *I* find it difficult to believe that someone with such a passionate opinion on prisons would not have been exposed to international reporting on this fact.

From the Independent link: "Norway’s prisons are famous for their luxurious facilities including saunas, spas, tennis courts and flat-screen TVs, all in picturesque wooded surrounds." Now, equate the grossly overcrowded luxurious prisons in Norway, against the number of vacant cells in the distinctly less luxurious prisons of the Netherlands . . . does that not tell you something? It tells me that my assertion - that if there was a strict discipline regime in our prisons like there are in yours (but not in Norway??), then 'our (UK) prisons would be empty virtually overnight' plus there would be very little recidivism - is spot on. I suggest you've just shot yourself in the foot!

 

[dystopian]

From the Independent link: "Norway’s prisons are famous for their luxurious facilities including saunas, spas, tennis courts and flat-screen TVs, all in picturesque wooded surrounds." Now, equate the grossly overcrowded luxurious prisons in Norway, against the number of vacant cells in the distinctly less luxurious prisons of the Netherlands . . . does that not tell you something?

No, because Dutch prisons are still very luxurious compared to just about every other country. It's also quite telling that you arbitrarily claim Dutch cells are "distinctly" less luxurious, when neither the article nor reality reflects this. The article simply states that no special adjustments will be made to the particular (old) prison for the Norwegians. Newer Dutch prisons are considerably more luxurious than this particular old prison.

It tells me that my assertion - that if there was a strict discipline regime in our prisons like there are in yours (but not in Norway??), then 'our (UK) prisons would be empty virtually overnight' plus there would be very little recidivism - is spot on. I suggest you've just shot yourself in the foot!

I really haven't; Dutch prisons don't have anywhere near as 'disciplined' a regime as prisons in the UK or the US. There is a great deal more comfort, freedom and rights that Dutch prisoners enjoy. You're engaging in a fallacy here; thinking that because Dutch prisons are claimed to be less comfortable than Norwegian prisoners, that therefore Dutch prisons are harsh and disciplined and that *that* is the reason why Norway is experiencing an overflow of prisoners while we're experiencing a shortage. This is of course, wrong.

Of course, you're also forgetting that despite (or rather, because of?) the luxurious nature of Norwegian prisons... Norway has the *lowest* rate of re-offense in the whole of Europe. It's re-offense rate is in fact dramatically lower than almost everywhere else. This certainly conflicts with your belief that harsh, disciplined prisons would cause less recidivism.

I suggest that *you* have just shot yourself in the foot.

 

[Cerberus]

No, because Dutch prisons are still very luxurious compared to just about every other country. It's also quite telling that you arbitrarily claim Dutch cells are "distinctly" less luxurious, when neither the article nor reality reflects this. The article simply states that no special adjustments will be made to the particular (old) prison for the Norwegians. Newer Dutch prisons are considerably more luxurious than this particular old prison.

It tells me that my assertion - that if there was a strict discipline regime in our prisons like there are in yours (but not in Norway??), then 'our (UK) prisons would be empty virtually overnight' plus there would be very little recidivism - is spot on. I suggest you've just shot yourself in the foot!

I really haven't; Dutch prisons don't have anywhere near as 'disciplined' a regime as prisons in the UK or the US. There is a great deal more comfort, freedom and rights that Dutch prisoners enjoy. You're engaging in a fallacy here; thinking that because Dutch prisons are claimed to be less comfortable than Norwegian prisoners, that therefore Dutch prisons are harsh and disciplined and that *that* is the reason why Norway is experiencing an overflow of prisoners while we're experiencing a shortage. This is of course, wrong.

Of course, you're also forgetting that despite (or rather, because of?) the luxurious nature of Norwegian prisons... Norway has the *lowest* rate of re-offense in the whole of Europe. It's re-offense rate is in fact dramatically lower than almost everywhere else. This certainly conflicts with your belief that harsh, disciplined prisons would cause less recidivism.

I suggest that *you* have just shot yourself in the foot.

Well if Norway has more convicted prisoners than their prisons can accommodate - especially bearing in mind the sparse population, relatively speaking - so has to farm them out to various other European prisons, then all I can say is that Norway doesn't have enough prisons of its own. I also note that Bastoy has what is essentially an experimental regime, and there are indeed some more conventional prisons, therefore isn't typical. I must admit to being confused why the recidivism numbers are so low though; maybe there's a code whereby recidivists are automatically sent to the conventional prisons precisely because they have reoffended? It's so bizarre that I can't help but feel there's a nuance here which you're keeping from me to support your standpoint.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Of course you do, reality has a well known liberal bias, after all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...eave-more-guards-than-prisoners-10081010.html
http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/...rlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...pty-jail-cells-to-ease-overcrowded-jails.html
http://www.trueactivist.com/netherlands-closing-19-prisons-due-to-lack-of-criminals/

I'm not sure why you find this hard to believe: the fact that the Netherlands has been experiencing a drastic reduction in crime and has been forced to close prisons/import prisoners has been known for years. *I* find it difficult to believe that someone with such a passionate opinion on prisons would not have been exposed to international reporting on this fact.

From the Independent link: "Norway’s prisons are famous for their luxurious facilities including saunas, spas, tennis courts and flat-screen TVs, all in picturesque wooded surrounds." Now, equate the grossly overcrowded luxurious prisons in Norway, against the number of vacant cells in the distinctly less luxurious prisons of the Netherlands . . . does that not tell you something? It tells me that my assertion - that if there was a strict discipline regime in our prisons like there are in yours (but not in Norway??), then 'our (UK) prisons would be empty virtually overnight' plus there would be very little recidivism - is spot on. I suggest you've just shot yourself in the foot!

I have friends who have been to Scandinavian prisons. Yes, they are comfortable. But it is still torture. Humans crave freedom. There´s literally no way to dress up prisons in such a way to make them desirable holiday destinations. The lack of freedom is just so terrible. There are stories of ex-cons who have committed crimes only to get locked up again. But all of those are about people who have spent 10+ years inside and have forgotten how to cope on the outside. Which would have been true regardless of how horrible the prisons are.

 

[Cerberus]

From the Independent link: "Norway’s prisons are famous for their luxurious facilities including saunas, spas, tennis courts and flat-screen TVs, all in picturesque wooded surrounds." Now, equate the grossly overcrowded luxurious prisons in Norway, against the number of vacant cells in the distinctly less luxurious prisons of the Netherlands . . . does that not tell you something? It tells me that my assertion - that if there was a strict discipline regime in our prisons like there are in yours (but not in Norway??), then 'our (UK) prisons would be empty virtually overnight' plus there would be very little recidivism - is spot on. I suggest you've just shot yourself in the foot!

I have friends who have been to Scandinavian prisons. Yes, they are comfortable. But it is still torture. Humans crave freedom. There´s literally no way to dress up prisons in such a way to make them desirable holiday destinations. The lack of freedom is just so terrible. There are stories of ex-cons who have committed crimes only to get locked up again. But all of those are about people who have spent 10+ years inside and have forgotten how to cope on the outside. Which would have been true regardless of how horrible the prisons are.

The 'craving for freedom' is subjective, and as to that, what I've highlighted above reminds me of what a repeat offender ex-con who was interviewed for a Panorama programme said about prisons; he said quite spontaneously (I paraphrase) that notwithstanding the mind-set that they won't be caught, many of them still believe a life of criminality is worth taking because (as I keep saying) they simply don't fear the consequences of the extremely short term. They regard it as an 'occupational hazard', if you will, and to those with a dysfunctional lifestyle (which most of them prefer - no 9-5 jobs for them!!) an enforced organised way of life is something they would actually choose to lead if only they were able to.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I have friends who have been to Scandinavian prisons. Yes, they are comfortable. But it is still torture. Humans crave freedom. There´s literally no way to dress up prisons in such a way to make them desirable holiday destinations. The lack of freedom is just so terrible. There are stories of ex-cons who have committed crimes only to get locked up again. But all of those are about people who have spent 10+ years inside and have forgotten how to cope on the outside. Which would have been true regardless of how horrible the prisons are.

The 'craving for freedom' is subjective, and as to that, what I've highlighted above reminds me of what a repeat offender ex-con who was interviewed for a Panorama programme said about prisons; he said quite spontaneously (I paraphrase) that notwithstanding the mind-set that they won't be caught, many of them still believe a life of criminality is worth taking because (as I keep saying) they simply don't fear the consequences of the extremely short term. They regard it as an 'occupational hazard', if you will, and to those with a dysfunctional lifestyle (which most of them prefer - no 9-5 jobs for them!!) an enforced organised way of life is something they would actually choose to lead if only they were able to.

Given the available options. An ex-con has a criminal record. So they have relatively less to lose by continuing their criminal career. Nobody likes playing a rigged game. You're not going to get an ex-con to go straight unless we remove public criminal records.

With the system we have now, it's like we want as many criminals as possible.