Boot Camps for Young Offenders

ballooba

Billy Timmons said in January 2003 that this policy would be part of any FG government. It is still on the agenda at the moment.

Personally, I think it is a good idea. I had originally thought that the Army were going to run the camps but the proposal is that they actually be run by the Irish Prison Service with input from the army and use of Army facilities.

The new super-prison in Cork is planned for the Kilworth facility of the Defence Forces, so this would be a perfect place to try this out.

The scheme would be modelled on a successful scheme run in the UK at Thorn Cross. There's a bit of insight here into how Thorn Cross works.

Young Offenders institutions are not working at the moment. The kids are getting out and reoffending. This might help to break the cycle of crime. I believe the effect of a stay in one of these would give kids:

• Discipline
• Respect
• New Skills
• Self-Esteem
• Positive Focus

I believe a lot of the criticism of this was down to being ill-informed. The more you look at it the more it looks like it could work.

Sleepy

TBH, I'd like to see more than a 'boot camp'. Three strikes and conscription sounds like a better option to me. Nothing like military training to instill discipline and respect for self and others in someone.

ballooba

As has been quite rightly pointed out on another thread, the Defence Forces would not want them. I presume they don't accept ex-cons either.

Also, remember the Black and Tans? As far as I know a lot of them were ex-cons.

Remember too that these are children. The overall aim would be to seriously reduce the number of kids who will get those three strikes (never mind the usual 60+ convictions they collect like war medals).

InFront

Very interesting about the Thorn Cross scheme, there is a report on its considerable success here which demonstrates that if these FG boot camps are run in a similar way, Ireland could benefit hugely in terms of juvenile crime, and save money. I like the way they emphasise vocational training and self respect as well as physical activity and a disciplined structure.

It is the lack of a discipline and lack of any respect for themselves or others that seems to be responsible for a lot of youth crime. This FG scheme looks like it could actually tackle that as opposed to hiding criminals away in cells or letting them back out on the streets, which as everyone but the government knows, doesn't solve a thing.

ballooba

InFront wrote:

It is the lack of a discipline and lack of any respect for themselves or others that seems to be responsible for a lot of youth crime.

I used help out a bit with kids in town. Help with their homework and stuff. I thought about it a lot when I was doing it.

These were really bright, good kids. It is really sad that only something like 1 in a 20 will finish secondary school. That's the way it was in this particular area.

A good proportion of those kids will also end up on drugs (a lot of their parents were users) and involved in crime. Somewhere between the ages of 12 and 18 the system is failing them.

Tea drinker

Ballooba,
What would happen in this boot camp?
Would the inmates receive training? Some kind of excercise programme?
What kind of punishements would be given to those who will not participate? I have to assume that you intend more than a stern talking to the guys and gals. If that's the case, what is the to stop the Bootcamp (government) being sued in the european court for human rights abuses?
You mentioned the system failing kids. Is it the system or the parents?
Sounds a bit Nanny state.

Please excuse my bracken english, I speak fast sometimes.:p

ballooba

Tea drinker wrote:

Would the inmates receive training? Some kind of excercise programme?

Yes and Yes. It's all in the document In_Front linked. (Colchester is in there too, it failed)

Tea drinker wrote:

What kind of punishements would be given to those who will not participate?

It's optional. The alternative is a YOI (Young Offenders Institution).
In the UK this system is only for YOs in the last 6 months of their sentences.

Tea drinker wrote:

I have to assume that you intend more than a stern talking to the guys and gals. If that's the case, what is the to stop the Bootcamp (government) being sued in the european court for human rights abuses?

No government in this country could condone corporal punishment. Physical abuse could not be tolerated. Contrary to popular belief, the blueshirts died a long time ago.

Tea drinker wrote:

You mentioned the system failing kids. Is it the system or the parents? Sounds a bit Nanny state.

A lot of those kids parents have failed them already. Some of those are lucky to have neighbours who care about them. They are only kids so as a society we do have a duty to protect them. As for a nanny state, I disagree, it's different when it comes to kids.

Tea drinker wrote:

Please excuse my bracken english, I speak fast sometimes.:p

No Worries. Apologies for my comment on the other thread.

Lemming

Boot camps don't work. The only reason boot camp works for the army is that you are actually joining the army.

I also seem to recall boot camps being run in either the UK or USA during the mid-1990s. All that happened was the kids became fitter, more aggressive and more mentally agile. None of which actually deals with the issue of offending in the first place. Other than to help them stay ahead of the law, as is what happened. The cops couldn't catch them [kids] because the kids were fitter than they were. And so the boot camp notion was quietly dropped.

ballooba

Lemming wrote:

Boot camps don't work. The only reason boot camp works for the army is that you are actually joining the army.

That's actually hilarious. You breezed into the thread and made a completely uninformed comment obviously without reading the material.

Maybe you actually just meant to say:
post_count++

simu

How exactly would you instill discipline, respect, self-Esteem and positive Focus? I imagine these kids would be resentful of authority figures to start with. Am curious.

Tea drinker

Hi lemming

Lemming wrote:

Boot camps don't work. The only reason boot camp works for the army is that you are actually joining the army.

What about those reality shows? How come they seem to work? I know it's tv, but seems to help. I particularly liked the recent one where the whole family was in a civilian "bootcamp". Seems some dysfuntional families were helped.

[/quote]..... None of which actually deals with the issue of offending in the first place.[/quote]
what are ya gettin at here.....??????

I REALLY don't want the prisons service to run anything like this. They are way too expensive, and, to my knowledge, have no history of innovative ideas. I think the prisons service is good for giving career criminals a career break, not suited to minor offenders.

ballooba

simu wrote:

How exactly would you instill discipline, respect, self-Esteem and positive Focus? I imagine these kids would be resentful of authority figures to start with. Am curious.

It's optional, so the kids would want to change before they go there. I would also imagine this type of institution would be a lot more interesting and fun than sitting around idle in a YOI. I suppose they would have to actively engage with the kids too, to figure out why they resent authority etc.

Self Esteem, through accomplishing their goals.
Respect, I would imagine there are activities designed at building respect for self and others.
Positive Focus, goals to achieve rather than just sitting around smoking and watching tv all day.
Discipline, more so self discipline than to authority figures.

ballooba

Tea drinker wrote:

I REALLY don't want the prisons service to run anything like this. They are way too expensive, and, to my knowledge, have no history of innovative ideas. I think the prisons service is good for giving career criminals a career break, not suited to minor offenders.

Interesting to note is the cost-savings in the Thorn Cross example.

Lemming

ballooba wrote:

That's actually hilarious. You breezed into the thread and made a completely uninformed comment obviously without reading the material.

No, what's hilarious is that you are pushing forward the suggestion of a politician as scripture. I'm pointing out that this very same idea was pushed as some sort of panachea to preventing young offenders re-offending last decade. And it failed. Miserably. For being an idiotic, simplistic election-stunt "solution" that also didn't address the core issues in the first place.

teadrinker wrote:

What about those reality shows? How come they seem to work? I know it's tv, but seems to help. I particularly liked the recent one where the whole family was in a civilian "bootcamp". Seems some dysfuntional families were helped.

You cannot seriously be comparing a tv reality show where people go voluntarily as opposed to some kid being sent to boot-camp by the authorities. There are so many flaws with that logic I don't know where to begin.

teadrinker wrote:

lemming wrote:

..... None of which actually deals with the issue of offending in the first place.

what are ya gettin at here.....??????

Simple. Sending young offenders to a boot camp does the following: makes them physically fit, more mentally agile, and shows them harsh, authoritarian de-humanising treatment (because that's what the army uses boot-camp for, partly)

None of the above deals with the why, where, and more importantly "why not" of how to handle life. And why re-offending isn't such a smart idea.

I REALLY don't want the prisons service to run anything like this. They are way too expensive, and, to my knowledge, have no history of innovative ideas. I think the prisons service is good for giving career criminals a career break, not suited to minor offenders.

Indeed, currently they are either sent to juve, where they are mixed with potentially even more screwed up young offenders in some sort of "lord of the flies"-esque situation, or you send them to boot camp where they receive de-humanising treatment. So which is "better"? Six of one? Half a dozen of the other? The end-result is the same with this approach.

And of course there's the good aul' mention of cost. These camps would be horrendously expensive to set up and run. Yes, politicians never mention the cost to the exchequer when coming up with such hair-brained stunts.

Lemming

ballooba wrote:

It's optional, so the kids would want to change before they go there. I would also imagine this type of institution would be a lot more interesting and fun than sitting around idle in a YOI. I suppose they would have to actively engage with the kids too, to figure out why they resent authority etc.

ROFL. "Optional" boot-camp? Yeahhhhhh .... this is going to work alright :rolleyes:

Lets see. Sit around all day, bored out of your skull, or stand in the freezing cold getting bawled at by some "drill-instructor" type authority figure. Let me think about the most likely notion to cross the mind of a young offender when weighing up the choices before them. It would probably go something like "f*ck that! Make me!"

ballooba

Lemming wrote:

No, what's hilarious is that you are pushing forward the suggestion of a politician.I'm pointing out that this very same idea was pushed as some sort of panachea to preventing young offenders re-offending last decade. And it failed. Miserably. For being an idiotic, simplistic election-stunt "solution" that also didn't address the core issues in the first place.

All political policies are the suggestions of politicians.

You mustn't have read the rest of the thread, because if you did then you would know that the idea has not been scrapped in the UK. It is operating quite successfully.

It really annoys me when people jump into a discussion half-baked without reading the rest of it.

Lemming wrote:

ROFL. "Optional" boot-camp? Yeahhhhhh .... this is going to work alright :rolleyes:

Read your own signature. How am I supposed to contend with a specimen like you?

InFront

Lemming wrote:

No, what's hilarious is that you are pushing forward the suggestion of a politician.

Funny how? You think what politicians say is automatically, universally incorrect, or just the guys who you didn't vote for?

One solution cannot address all of the issues, everybody knows that.

Saying "everybody knows that" does not make it true. Prove how 'boot camps' like Thorn Cross do not address the delinquent's issues?

Simple. Sending young offenders to a boot camp does the following: makes them physically fit, more mentally agile, and shows them harsh, authoritarian de-humanising treatment

If improperly managed, yeah. Did you read the the report or not?

And of course there's the good aul' mention of cost. These camps would be horrendously expensive to set up and run.

So no, you did not bother to read up on this at all.

ballooba

ballooba wrote:

I believe a lot of the criticism of this was down to being ill-informed.

ROFL.

It just goes to show; you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Lemming

ballooba wrote:

All political policies are the suggestions of politicians.

You mustn't have read the rest of the thread, because if you did then you would know that the idea has not been scrapped in the UK. It is operating quite successfully.

Really? Would you mind pointing out where exactly in either of your original references is the mention of a boot-camp? The rest of the thread shows no reference to "successful" camps in the UK.

InFront produced a report later in the thread that interestingly enough notes that Thorn Cross is not a boot-camp and more of a prison reform school. It notes that a second institution (Colchester) was opened with a focus on military-esque discipline. Interestingly enough, neither institution was for "young offenders" since the age requirements were 18-21, which = adult. Placement was also voluntary.

But here's the crux of how "successful" the institutions are. Re-offending rates are 6% less than elsewhere, and the cost of maintenance per offender was just over £100 pounds cheaper. Not very "successful" by any means. Furthermore, the report noted that the use of military discipline had no beneficial effect.

And I am, I believe, thinking of the USA when I say that "boot-camps" were abandoned because they produced tougher, harder criminals.

It really annoys me when people jump into a discussion half-baked without reading the rest of it.

It really annoys me when people make inane suggestions without actually bothering to read their own source material.

ballooba

Lemming wrote:

Really? Would you mind pointing out where exactly in either of your original references is the mention of a boot-camp? The rest of the thread shows no reference to "successful" camps in the UK.

When the policy is discussed in the popular media they are called "Boot Camps". The scheme in the UK is exactly what Billy Timmons is modelling his suggestions on. He has said this before.

Link <---- Remember to read this one!!!

Lemming wrote:

InFront produced a report later in the thread that interestingly enough notes that Thorn Cross is not a boot-camp and more of a prison reform school. It notes that a second institution (Colchester) was opened with a focus on military-esque discipline. Interestingly enough, neither institution was for "young offenders" since the age requirements were 18-21, which = adult. Placement was also voluntary.

Yes. Voluntary, so you were wrong.
You might also notice in the first link the following text:

HMPS wrote:

Thorn Cross is a purpose built open young offender institution opened in 1985 on the site of a former Royal Naval Air Station which was initially used as an open adult establishment.

Lemming wrote:

But here's the crux of how "successful" both institutions are. Re-offending rates are 6% less than elsewhere, and the cost of maintenance per offender was just over £100 pounds cheaper. Not very "successful" by any means.

So they are cheaper then, so you were wrong.

Lemming wrote:

And I am, I believe, thinking of the USA when I say that "boot-camps" were abandoned because they produced tougher, harder criminals.

Again, you were wrong.

Lemming wrote:

It really annoys me when people make inane suggestions without actually bothering to read their own source material.

Perhaps you might be a little less gung-ho the next time and save yourself getting all hot and bothered.

It looks to me like you read the material after In_Front and my comments and then tried to retro-fit your criticism. Of course you will deny this but it doesn't fit.

Lemming

ballooba wrote:

When the policy is discussed in the popular media they are called "Boot Camps". The scheme in the UK is exactly what Billy Timmons is modelling his suggestions on. He has said this before.

Link <---- Remember to read this one!!!

I'll assume that you have a link that doesn't require membership/subscription? I find login pages fascinating and what-not, but not very informative ...

Yes. Voluntary, so you were wrong.
You might also notice in the first link the following text:

HMPS wrote:

Thorn Cross is a purpose built open young offender institution opened in 1985 on the site of a former Royal Naval Air Station which was initially used as an open adult establishment.

And I'll ask again where the reference to Thorn Cross being a military-style boot-camp is in that reference? That it's based on a former RNS station is hardly conducive to it being what you insinuate it is.

Easons on Dawson St. is on the site of a former bank. Doesn't make it a bank now does it?

The "volunteer" program has very strict requirements. So it's misleading to say that this program will be brought in to stem the tide of young offenders re-offending. The people most in need of it will be the ones that aren't admitted for a couple of very practical reasons, namely security and cost.

So they are cheaper then, so you were wrong.

Cheaper to you and me, yes. Cheaper to a state institution. Pocket change used to buy stationary at that level. Considering that there are about 100 available places between both institutions named in InFront's report, the savings don't even cover a prison guard's salary. Not even remotely.

Further, at 100 places - a 6% reduction in reoffending is paltry. An improvement, but paltry and not an indicator of a successful policy

Again, you were wrong.

Link please?

Perhaps you might be a little less gung-ho the next time and save yourself getting all hot and bothered.

The only one getting hot and bothered here is you balluba. Having to resort to abusive remarks against a poster is hardly a good sign of rational behaviour is it now? And don't bother trying to edit your post. It's already been reported.

It looks to me like you read the material after In_Front and my comments and then tried to retro-fit your criticism. Of course you will deny this but it doesn't fit.

No. Not at all. You're reading the material in a manner that pushes an agenda to try and fit a square peg into a round hole.

ballooba

Lemming wrote:

The only one getting hot and bothered here is you balluba. Having to resort to abusive remarks against a poster is hardly a good sign of rational behaviour is it now? And don't bother trying to edit your post. It's already been reported.

In light of the overwhelming evidence I feel justified. I just can't argue with you. I won't resort to using the ignore button, I'll just do it the old fashioned way.

Lemming

ballooba wrote:

In light of the overwhelming evidence I feel justified. I just can't argue with you. I won't resort to using the ignore button, I'll just do it the old fashioned way.

"overwhelming" evidence? I don't think so. I notice you haven't attempted to answer a single point I raised in my last post. Nor have you bothered to try and expand upon your own acclaimed facts & figures. I've pointed out flaws in them, so you turn to abuse. Good argument. Solid grounds and all that.

Ta-ra and toodle-pip

InFront

Lemming wrote:

And I'll ask again where the reference to Thorn Cross being a military-style boot-camp is in that reference? That it's based on a former RNS station is hardly conducive to it being what you insinuate it is.

These things aren't called boot camps in gpvernment documents. Admit it, it's a boot camp, it works, and you just didn't bother reading about it.

Regardless of who ends up implementing these projects, if they are managed as well as the Thorn Cross example the impact looks extremely positive.

ballooba

I'm ashamed to have been dragged down to this level but here goes. Seeing as you don't seem to be able to break down the information yourself. I will lay it out in point form for you.

You said:

• "Boot camps don't work. The only reason boot camp works for the army is that you are actually joining the army." It is qute obvious from the thread that these are not military boot camps. it was explicity stated in the first post. If you only read the title, then you may make this mistake.
• "And so the boot camp notion was quietly dropped." if we're talking in the context of the thread, as most people do, then the institutions in question were not scrapped. They are active.
• "you send them to boot camp where they receive de-humanising treatment" See above. And above that.
• "These camps would be horrendously expensive to set up and run." Presuming you are talking in the context of the thread, again, this is not true and is outlined in the material.
• "ROFL. "Optional" boot-camp? Yeahhhhhh .... this is going to work alright " Presuming you are talking in the context of the thread, again, the institutions are voluntary as indicated in the source material.
• ", neither institution was for "young offenders" since the age requirements were 18-21" As the quoted text illustrated (I would have thought) Thorn Cross is a Young Offenders Institution.
• "The "volunteer" program has very strict requirements. So it's misleading to say that this program will be brought in to stem the tide of young offenders re-offending. " Nobody claimed this was a one stop shop. If you would like a constructive, informed, considered debate on this, I would be happy to partake.

Lemming

InFront wrote:

These things aren't called boot camps in gpvernment documents. Admit it, it's a boot camp, it works, and you just didn't bother reading about it.

Yes I did. I threw back figures from the very report you cited InFront. Thorn Cross is not a boot camp. It's a prison reform school. The paper makes note of the fact that politicians felt a need for a harsher regime and conceived the Colchester "camp" which did make use of military procedure such as parade-ground drills, etc. Further in the very same paper that you cited, the conclusion is reached that introducing military-esque discipline had no perceived benefit.

If you want to push the idea of a Prison reform school, then fine. Do so. But don't label it as a boot-camp, because it's not. As for Colchester, the fact that imposing military discipline had little to no net benefit speaks volumes as to the "effectiveness" of boot camps. Considering that Colchester's regime was imposed on volunteers further underscores that point. Imagine attempting to impose such a regime on a non-compliant offender.

Another way to look at this is as follows. For all the effort that went into implementing and running these institutions there is very little to show for it according to that same report. We have, over roughly 100 offenders, who are volunteers and, as per criteria set down by Thorn Cross, not serious offenders. These are young adult males. Not child offenders. And out of that 100(ish) figure, approximately 6 of them did not re-offend within 2 years of release. So that says something else entirely, and one can question whether or not this system is significantly more workable than the existing system and that there are perhaps better avenues to explore.

Regardless of who ends up implementing these projects, if they are managed as well as the Thorn Cross example the impact looks extremely positive.

I don't mean to sound cynical or jaded, but do you think such an institution would actually not be set up in a half-arse manner in this country? And haemorage money? I don't expect an answer to that because it's rhetorical and wide open to speculation. My point is that there may be cheaper and more effective alternatives to providing a different form of incarceration which shows little added benefit for the effort.

Lemming

ballooba wrote:

I'm ashamed to have been dragged down to this level but here goes. Seeing as you don't seem to be able to break down the information yourself. I will lay it out in point form for you.

Edit: Mudslinging tripe.

I haven't dragged yo down to any level. You placed yourself there. I've pulled figures from cited references and challenged you on them and you've done nothing but sling mud.

The list you provided breaks absolutely no information down whatsoever, presents nothing new or clarified, and lays nothing out in point form except a pathetic attempt to sling mud.

Dontico

i think this is a fantastic idea. usually when people ask me why i am voting fine gael, i mention this.
if done correctly, YO will channel thier energy to something productive. maybe afterwards they might dicide to pick up a career in the army?
i forgot who said it earlier, but YO are not considered to be ex-cons. on the basis your record is wiped after 18 years old.

Lemming

Dontico wrote:

i think this is a fantastic idea. usually when people ask me why i am voting fine gael, i mention this.
if done correctly, YO will channel thier energy to something productive. maybe afterwards they might dicide to pick up a career in the army?
i forgot who said it earlier, but YO are not considered to be ex-cons. on the basis your record is wiped after 18 years old.

The afore-mentioned schemes that others have pointed to were for males aged between 18-21, volunteers, and not serving for serious criminal offenses. The age-criteria alone rules out youth records. That also means "ex-con". And of course, iirc, the army doesn't like criminal records

oscarBravo

ballooba and Lemming: tone it down, please.

Boston

Sleepy wrote:

TBH, I'd like to see more than a 'boot camp'. Three strikes and conscription sounds like a better option to me. Nothing like military training to instill discipline and respect for self and others in someone.

jesus thats a terrible Idea. The Irish army is one of the best trained and well equiped out there (from all accounts) and has a hugely possitive public image. Forcing scum to enlist would just drag it down.