Boot Camps for Young Offenders

Time Magazine

I dunno, we could have them in a crap part of the army?

ballooba

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 army will most likely not be involved in this scheme. It may be sited on an army facility and use their facilities, but not their personnel. It's not a military style boot camp.

Lemming

ballooba wrote:

The army will most likely not be involved in this scheme. It may be sited on an army facility and use their facilities, but not their personnel. It's not a military style boot camp.

Tell me ballooba, what exactly is the idea of a non military-style boot camp? Boot camp is a military concept, part of which is to instill rigid discipline and dehumanise the recruits so that they will follow orders that result in death & destruction more readily.

If a non-military organisation wants to copy the concept of boot camp, if it isn't "military-style" then it's not boot camp. Because there's only one 'style' to copy. And that's military. You can argue that it's not a military-run boot camp, but it' still a boot camp because it borrows heavily from military doctrine in how to approach "training".

And as InFront's cited reference made mention, of the two institutions in the UK that you are so fond of mentioning, the one which had a specific mandate to introduce military doctrine (and by extension be considered a 'boot camp') failed in making any notable result beyond that achieved by the initial prison reform school (aka. Thorn Cross) which did not have a military-style doctrine.

As for location of such institutions, arguing that because it'll be on military property doesn't mean squat. It could be housed in DisneyLand and still be the same thing. Location means bugger all and is a red-herring of an argument to make.

But Boston also makes a very good point. The Irish army has a fantastic reputation internationally, and I doubt very much that they'd want their name associated with anything like this given the potential for negative 'spin' by any half-baked tabloid paper. Or an offender escaping and running amok (and given some of the escapes that happen from prisoners under escort in this country - these are the incidents that don't get reported - that suggestion isn't as outlandish as it might seem)

InFront

From the OP's link, first post of this thread. This is what he was referring to as a boot camp:

Regime: The Regime includes provision of farms and gardens and training courses. Parentcraft, drug awareness, anger management, car crime, Fire Cadets and SDP. Also Offending Behaviour Programmes, Resettlement Programme for job/training placement and mentoring are on offer. Thorn Cross has a number of partnerships with national and local employers.

You say if it isn't military style it's not a boot camp. That's just your definition. Thorn Cross is actually both miliatry and vocational/ supportive. It seems to me that proposing some unbending definition of bootcamp now is backpedalling from what you were saying that what the OP proposed wouldn't work.

This is actually a great idea, and I am sure we will see it here soon.

ballooba

Lemming wrote:

Tell me ballooba, what exactly is the idea of a non military-style boot camp? Boot camp is a military concept, part of which is to instill rigid discipline and dehumanise the recruits so that they will follow orders that result in death & destruction more readily.

Arguing over the name is semantics. I don't believe they are boot camps. I have already said this.

Thorn Hill was called a boot camp until the Home Office decided to put a spin on it. It is now know as a 'High Intensity Training' programme. This policy of Fine Gael continues to be termed 'Boot Camps' by the media, this is the name by which the public know the scheme now.

Lemming wrote:

As for location of such institutions, arguing that because it'll be on military property doesn't mean squat. It could be housed in DisneyLand and still be the same thing. Location means bugger all and is a red-herring of an argument to make.

Your so concerned with terminology that you are blinded from any other constructive deabte. All I am saying is that if the prison is located on a Defence Forces site then they will have access to Defence Forces facilities for their 'High Intensity Training' activities. I'm not claiming the Defence Forces will be involved.

Lemming wrote:

But Boston also makes a very good point. The Irish army has a fantastic reputation internationally, and I doubt very much that they'd want their name associated with anything like this given the potential for negative 'spin' by any half-baked tabloid paper. Or an offender escaping and running amok (and given some of the escapes that happen from prisoners under escort in this country - these are the incidents that don't get reported - that suggestion isn't as outlandish as it might seem)

The super-prison is already planned for Kilworth. I have read discussions among army personnel about it's siting there. They have no problem with it and a site has been identified. The only question is whether they will be open to having an open prison there. I can't see why not.

With regard to the point you have made above about the inmates in Thorn Cross not being young offenders. Thorn Cross is a YOI and as far as I am aware accepts YOs from ages of 15 up as stated in the first document I linked. The initial study was conducted with 18-21 year olds but this has been expanded as far as I am aware.

I'm not 'pushing' this because it's a Fine Gael policy. I'm attempting to have a debate on the merits of what I think is a good policy. I would not try to defend something like random drug testing for kids in schools, because I don't think it's a good idea. I am not a party hack and only joined the party last year, as a result of a discussion on this very forum I might add.

Lemming

InFront wrote:

From the OP's link, first post of this thread. This is what he was referring to as a boot camp:

Regime: The Regime includes provision of farms and gardens and training courses. Parentcraft, drug awareness, anger management, car crime, Fire Cadets and SDP. Also Offending Behaviour Programmes, Resettlement Programme for job/training placement and mentoring are on offer. Thorn Cross has a number of partnerships with national and local employers.

You say if it isn't military style it's not a boot camp. That's just your definition. Thorn Cross is actually both miliatry and vocational/ supportive.

Ok, three things here.

1. The use of the word "regime" is, I suspect, giving some people a false impression. The word does not imply an emphasis on military-derived doctrine. Athletes have regimes. Professional musicians have regimes. You and I have regimes. We wake up at a certain time, go to work at a generally universal time, have lunch, etc.

2. "Boot camp". Look at the name. Where did the term "boot camp" originate? In what context is it pretty much exclusively used? In reference to military doctrine/practices.

3. And the most important point to raise. Where exactly in the above quoted program/regime for Thorn Cross does it mention anything about military-derived doctrine. As opposed to the Colchester program which explicitly mentioned adding military-doctrine on top of the program provided by Thorn Cross. I'm not sure what I'm missing here? Maybe I'm blind and not able to read certain words, but I don't see anything attesting to Thorn Cross haviing any such focus from the above quote, or the rest of the website. I'm sure you are capable of pointing out the exact reference for me please?

It seems to me that proposing some unbending definition of boot-camp now is backpedalling from what you were saying that what the OP proposed wouldn't work.

"Seems" can be misleading. See point 2 above. Further, every time the laughable suggestion of instituting "boot camps" gets mentioned by politicians, what immediately goes through your mind? I'd hazard a guess that it's a scene from Full Metal Jacket. The innuendo that is sold is far more militaristic and gives a better electioneering-stunt "sound-bite" than "prison reform school" don't you think? As I've already said, if you are proposing a prison reform school, then do so. But don't try and paint it as a boot-camp, because the introduction of military-doctrine doesn't work. Colchester's report, as cited by you, bears that point out.

ballooba

I'd like to point out the wide use of the term Boot Camp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_camp

And also the comments in the following article regarding the Canadian system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_camp_%28correctional%29

I can't get more info on the Canadian system at the moment. I will look into it later.

InFront

Lemming wrote:

3. And the most important point to raise. Where exactly in the above quoted program/regime for Thorn Cross does it mention anything about military-derived doctrine.

If you had read the report properly, you you would have seen it. The government refer to it as a boot camp, and they say this:

Thorn Cross Young Offender Institution
The ‘High Intensity Training’ or ‘HIT’ regime at Thorn Cross
Young Offender Institution (YOI) was based on interventions
and activities that research had shown to be effective in
reducing recidivism. It offers a highly structured 16-hour
programme of activities each day that are physically
challenging (including military drilling) and address
offending behaviour.

As I said, they approach rehabilitation from the aspect of physical fitness and military-type training as well as trying to counsel the offender and offer him vocational support. It's a good approach, it works, it is what the OP is suggesting, and I really don't see your problem.

"Boot camp". Look at the name. Where did the term "boot camp" originate?

Who cares? Nobody is interested in defining bootcamp. It is mentioned as a boot camp in the report, it can be, and is, interpreted as such.

Judt

We could always outsource it to the US Army, they're always looking for bodies.

Seriously.

No?

Alright then, the basic idea of "instilling good values" sounds like a good one, but if anyone has checked lately, army-style boot camps don't produce well mannered individuals, they produce soldiers. Non-army-style boot camps produce people who can polish boots, but not fire a rifle. The idea of these boot camps sounds good, just like execution does to some people, because "it's tough." We like the idea of tossing little brats into a tough regime where they'll be taken beyond their comfort zones.

As to whether or not the system actually works, I think most of the evidence shows that you don't make well-mannered individuals by running people up and down a hill, you make well-mannered individuals by giving them goals in life to strive towards.

InFront

It's like déja vu.

ballooba

Judt wrote:

We could always outsource it to the US Army, they're always looking for bodies.

Quite funny, an american living in Dublin mentioned this policy to me recently, in a pub of all places. She actually said "Sending them off to Iraq, it's so cruel.". I had to explain to her that Ireland is not part of the "coalition of the willing" or whatever they call themselves these days.

Judt wrote:

The idea of these boot camps sounds good, just like execution does to some people, because "it's tough." We like the idea of tossing little brats into a tough regime where they'll be taken beyond their comfort zones.

Which has been proven not to work. I completely agree.

Judt wrote:

As to whether or not the system actually works, I think most of the evidence shows that you don't make well-mannered individuals by running people up and down a hill, you make well-mannered individuals by giving them goals in life to strive towards.

This scheme does give people a goal to works towards. It teaches them skills such as those required by a Car Mechanic. Cynics might say that this will train these guys to rob cars, but I think you will find that a spell in the 'Joy would go a lot farther in training them up in that respect. Conventional prisons are just a "School for Hoods".

The fact that these schemes are voluntary is in my opinion an indication that these young people want a change for the better. The US system has been criticised for offering young people reduced sentences for involvement in their system. Which actually produces the effect of involving people who have no interest. This should be optional.

Manic Moran

I think if the perception is just sending lads to eight weeks' of "Bad lad's army" or whatever the quivalent is, then it's not going to work. There has to be a lot more to it than just shouting and drill.

In the fundamental sense, the poster back on page one who said something akin to "It works in the army because they're joining the army" is quite correct. I've been a recruit twice, and officer candidate once. I've had about as much 'boot camp' as a man need take, but the underlying 'trick' to graduating one of those military courses is to simply put yourself on autopilot, and look to the end, because no matter how much the Drill Sergeant or TAC would yell at you and make your life miserable, you realise that come August 21st (or whenever your end date is), you're out, and free of that environment. The fact that in the Army you still are 'in' for the next couple of years, and that you have to mandatorily keep the sort of mindset that you've had forced on you is a great component in the fact that the military's training has behavioural benefit.

As a result, a 'boot camp' for young offenders cannot simply be taken into isolation. You can't put someone in it for eight weeks (or whatever), process them through, send them back out in the world, and expect that their behaviour will change. You must back it up with something else: Only then does the concept have value.

NTM

ballooba

Manic Moran wrote:

As a result, a 'boot camp' for young offenders cannot simply be taken into isolation. You can't put someone in it for eight weeks (or whatever), process them through, send them back out in the world, and expect that their behaviour will change. You must back it up with something else: Only then does the concept have value.

That's an interesting point. What happens when they leave? Does the government try and set these guys up with jobs? Presumably this is up to their parole officer?

WRT your other points about military drills, they don't come into play for this particular scheme. It's not a military style boot camp.

Tea drinker

ballooba wrote:

Quite funny, an american living in Dublin mentioned this policy to me recently, in a pub of all places. She actually said "Sending them off to Iraq, it's so cruel."

I think she got Iraq and Guantanamo bay mixed up.... that would surely sort them out!!!!!!

stovelid

Maybe use them as human shields

Seriously though, that would be a pretty ill considered scheme. Soldiers come into contact with the citizens of other nations in all sorts of situations, often in situations that require reasoning and restraint. Armies probably need more training if possible, not an influx of people antipathetic to the concept of soldiering.

Also, I would think career soldiers wouldn't like us dismissing the army as a dump for delinquents.

I think a camp idea seems OK, if the emphasis was on rehabilitation and meaningful work and training. However I feel that something with too much discipline and punitive intent would not really work with kids that already have a problem with that kind of stuff?

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.

philologos

Lemming wrote:

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.

Wasn't E4's Brat Camp a show where bratty kids were sent to a camp in Utah by their parents, not at their own free will (I don't think anyway). In most of the cases (I think all of them actually but I'm not entirely sure) the kids behaved much better when they returned to Britain.

Lemming

Jakkass wrote:

Wasn't E4's Brat Camp a show where bratty kids were sent to a camp in Utah by their parents, not at their own free will (I don't think anyway). In most of the cases (I think all of them actually but I'm not entirely sure) the kids behaved much better when they returned to Britain.

*sigh*

The TV is never wrong ..... or dresses things up.

Go back to watching American Gladiators everyone. There's nothing going on here to concern yourselves with. You are free to believe whatever we tell you to believe.

ballooba

Jakkass wrote:

Wasn't E4's Brat Camp a show where bratty kids were sent to a camp in Utah by their parents, not at their own free will (I don't think anyway). In most of the cases (I think all of them actually but I'm not entirely sure) the kids behaved much better when they returned to Britain.

There's a bit of a difference between YOs and spoiled brats.

imeddyhobbs

So they send young offenders to a boot camp yea??
What does anybody do if that young offender just says no to everything that he is told to do?
Are they going to beat him?
Are the going to starve him?
Are they going to leave leave him out in the bad weather?
The obvious answer is no because they are not allowed to do this!
Im just going to be as thick as Billy for a second and suppose that their was a system where a court offered a young offender a choice of going to St Pats or a boot camp,i would imagine the offender would go for the boot camp because he would be able to get out more often in the camp than he would if he was in St Pats.
Billy Timmons is a donkey that has been sitting in the dail for the past few years like a mute,then one day he got this childish thought about a bootcamp and he started spouting his mouth off without thinking,what a go getter he is:D

ballooba

:rolleyes: Read The Thread.

stovelid

stovelid wrote:

Seriously though, that would be a pretty ill considered scheme. Soldiers come into contact with the citizens of other nations in all sorts of situations, often in situations that require reasoning and restraint. Armies probably need more training if possible, not an influx of people antipathetic to the concept of soldiering.

Weren't the foreign legion capable of recruiting from those convicted for some crime? From what I gather they're help in great respect across most military circles.

I think you're all pushing this crinimal element a bit much. They're not talking about sending murderers, rapists, serial killers etc. They're talking about repeat offenders for average crime, which makes up the majority of those in question.

I think a camp idea seems OK, if the emphasis was on rehabilitation and meaningful work and training. However I feel that something with too much discipline and punitive intent would not really work with kids that already have a problem with that kind of stuff?

Personally, I think the need is there for some form of solution. Whether this is it, I don't know. However, Ireland doesn't suffer from the gang history and availablity of guns as in other countries like the US or the UK, where this has been tried and failed. In Ireland, this may be just enough to either "shock" these kids/teens into awareness, or at least instill some manner of self-respect.

Its funny in a way. Whenever one of these topics come up, they're shot down rather quickly, but I've yet to read any real alternatives being offered. Except for more of the same responses that have allowed this mess to continue, and get worse. I don't know if this is the answer, but I think the environment in Ireland is vastly different to the other countries that tried this before. It may be that its early enough to make a positive impact on our society.

If it was actually introduced, which I seriously doubt.

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote:

As a result, a 'boot camp' for young offenders cannot simply be taken into isolation. You can't put someone in it for eight weeks (or whatever), process them through, send them back out in the world, and expect that their behaviour will change. You must back it up with something else: Only then does the concept have value.

NTM

So throw in something at the end. Two years hard labour. Educate them in building roads, and other infrastructure which the country actually needs. Provide them with some degree of skill/education so when they're released they have an alternative. But I think the boot camp approach would be needed, to move them away from the belief that they're going to have an easy time of it. An enticement for them to work hard. To move on to the next phase, quicker.

So give them limited options afterwards. Personally, I'd think something along the lines of boot camp for 3 months, and if they pass an exam by inspectors within the camp, they would be allowed off the camp, to work & learn a trade. (If they dont pass, they repeat the course) They would still be under sentence, and restricted in freedoms, but they would have had to achieve a level to get out of the camp, and secondly learn a skill. Two years later, they re-enter society and have the ability to choose something other than crime. Say, 1/3 decide not to commit crimes, I think that would be a success.

At the moment, what happens? They commit a crime, serve a small amount of time, and are released. Nothings changed. They're still without any "legal" skills/experience, and the only self-respect they may have learnt is through associating with other crinimals.

ballooba

Please, read the whole thread before replying!
This is unbelievable!

Behave Balooba

imeddyhobbs

ballooba wrote:

This is unbelievable!

The concept or the thread?

ballooba

Tristrame wrote:

Behave Balooba

Sorry, Edited.

I'll fill those in who haven't read the thread. Military style boot camps have been proven ineffective. It's in the very first post. The theme continues throughout the thread. The same first post details a High Intensity Training programme that has been found somewhat effective in the UK.

imeddyhobbs

I looked at that Thorn cross website but i could not find the feedback page from the reformed users.I was expecting to see something like 'Hi my name David,i used to be a scumbag but since i went to thorn cross i have become a proud member of society and currently fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq.Does this site have a feedback page??or is it just another institution blowing its own trumpet
?

Dontico

it may have been a good idea to make a poll about this.

ballooba

Dontico wrote:

it may have been a good idea to make a poll about this.

When people don't even know the facts (or wish to know them). It would be pointless.

Polls are not allowed in the Politics forum either as far as I know.

Dontico

why? seems odd.

anyway, the idea seems perfectly rational and logical to me. a typically fine gael pragmatic approach.