Life-sentence prisoners ‘should get in-cell telephones’ (and Skype, own menus, etc)

Harika

Chewbacca wrote: »

Whats your solution?

What would you like to see happen to someone who has intentionally taken someones life and consequently ruined multiple others?

What do you achieve by locking them away until they die? So that they learn their lesson?
No doubt that there are people who go in and out, but harsher punishment is not deterring people from murdering people. The US has one of the strictest systems here and the incarnate in percentage more people than anyone else. Those costs you have to pay, while someone rehabilitated and outside has at least the chance to take care of himself again.
What has shown the least return rate is education and apprenticeships.

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Harika wrote: »

What do you achieve by locking them away until they die? So that they learn their lesson?
No doubt that there are people who go in and out, but harsher punishment is not deterring people from murdering people. The US has one of the strictest systems here and the incarnate in percentage more people than anyone else. Those costs you have to pay, while someone rehabilitated and outside has at least the chance to take care of himself again.
What has shown the least return rate is education and apprenticeships.

So what is your solution - if I murder someone I get to go to college?

Grab All Association

I’ve said it before on here

50+ convictions Jimmy the scumbag types that are in and out of our courts almost weekly should be either given lobotomies or controlled with drugs.


The CIA would give people LSD and tell them they’d keep them in this state forever unless they talked. It may not have been effective intelligence wise but scared the shïte out of the detainee.

CrankyHaus

No

Grayson wrote: »

But why the need to punish? Like I mentioned before it's a human desire to see people punished. Punishment rarely works as a deterrent or to prevent reoffending. And it doesn't matter how strong the punishment is. The death penalty hasn't lowered the murder rate in the countries that have it.

The reason we punish is because it feels wrong not to punish people.

I agree there may be occasions where the head of a criminal gang may continue their activities if they're given communication facilities. However most prisoners don't fall into that category. Most aren't criminal masterminds or the heads of organized gangs. It may be that it's easier to rehabilitate if they're able to get support from family and friends.

Punishment most certainly does work as a deterrent for behaviour society deems unacceptable. It is the reason you sleep safely in your bed at night.

Remove laws with punishments and see what happens, all historical precedents are of a descent into anarchy which in turn leads to harsh summary punishments to restore order. The exception is very small communities with sufficient cohesion that people find opposing the collective unthinkable.

People and societies punish crime to ensure their own safety, not out of some sadistic retributive urge as you seem to think.

DickSwiveller

The should have more reform than punishment

Harika wrote: »

What do you achieve by locking them away until they die? So that they learn their lesson?
No doubt that there are people who go in and out, but harsher punishment is not deterring people from murdering people. The US has one of the strictest systems here and the incarnate in percentage more people than anyone else. Those costs you have to pay, while someone rehabilitated and outside has at least the chance to take care of himself again.
What has shown the least return rate is education and apprenticeships.

Let me give you an example. A few years ago, there was a local man in my area who murdered two innocent Polish men. This person was causing mayhem locally for years and all the decent people in the area are delighted that he is now serving two consecutive life sentences. He shouldn't be let out because he has shown that he is capable of killing two innocent people for no reason( Regardless of rehabilitation: Whatever that means. It sounds pretty Orwellian to me.)

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Let me give you an example. A few years ago, there was a local man in my area who murdered two innocent Polish men. This person was causing mayhem locally for years and all the decent people in the area are delighted that he is now serving two consecutive life sentences. He shouldn't be let out because he has shown that he is capable of killing two innocent people for no reason( Regardless of rehabilitation: Whatever that means. It sounds pretty Orwellian to me.)

Apparently all he needs is a hug and a college certificate, and he'd be as right as rain.

Grayson

No

Sore_toe wrote: »

We don't have to do sh1t bar keep them walled in and fed to a basic standard, they have five years to think on there sins

Rehabilitation implies that the offender was owed something and thus it wasn't there fault what happened

That's not what rehabilitation means. it means that we do something to try and stop it occurring again rather than just hoping that it doesn't.

Gravelly wrote: »

Because a society where there are no consequences for one's actions will quickly break down into anarchy. There is a huge amount of experimental and real-life examples of what happens when there is no punishment for stepping outside the bounds of normal behaviour.

No there isn't. I don't murder and rape because I might go to prison if i do. Prison sentences aren't what keep people in line.

And it's been shown that rehabilitation works. It really does. not always but it does lower the amount of reoffenders compared to just punishment. That means less crimes and less victims.

Harika

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Let me give you an example. A few years ago, there was a local man in my area who murdered two innocent Polish men. This person was causing mayhem locally for years and all the decent people in the area are delighted that he is now serving two consecutive life sentences. He shouldn't be let out because he has shown that he is capable of killing two innocent people for no reason( Regardless of rehabilitation: Whatever that means. It sounds pretty Orwellian to me.)

Yeah, there are cases where people are locked away forever, so the system works or?

rehabilitate. verb (tr) to help (a person who has acquired a disability or addiction or who has just been released from prison) to readapt to society or a new job, as by vocational guidance, retraining, or therapy. to restore to a former position or rank

Signore Fancy Pants

This post has been deleted.

Harika

Gravelly wrote: »

So what is your solution - if I murder someone I get to go to college?

You still imprison them, but there you offer job training or education so they have a chance outside. Cause let's face it, if they come out with no job or no outlook on a normal life they will drop back to crime.

CrankyHaus

No

Grayson wrote: »

No there isn't. I don't murder and rape because I might go to prison if i do. Prison sentences aren't what keep people in line.

Your mistake is in assuming that everyone is a good and law-abiding person like you. Sadly this is not the case. A minority of people will not consent to obey the law and it is necessary to coerce them into doing so, while attempting to rehabilitate them so that they obey the law in future.

Graces7

The poll title sounds like sheltered accommodation for old folk and probably better set up..

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Grayson wrote: »

No there isn't. I don't murder and rape because I might go to prison if i do. Prison sentences aren't what keep people in line.

Wow - overturning decades of philosophical and psychological study in a single line. Well done.

You refer to yourself - what of other people - do you imagine everyone is like you?

Grayson wrote: »

And it's been shown that rehabilitation works. It really does. not always but it does lower the amount of reoffenders compared to just punishment. That means less crimes and less victims.

Of course it does, nobody I've seen has argued that it doesn't.

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Harika wrote: »

You still imprison them, but there you offer job training or education so they have a chance outside. Cause let's face it, if they come out with no job or no outlook on a normal life they will drop back to crime.

Yet again, nobody I've seen has argued against this - who are you guys actually arguing with?

Or is it the case that you are putting up a strawman argument to hide your real point, which seems to be that you don't believe criminals should suffer any consequences at all?

Harika

Gravelly wrote: »

Of course it does, nobody I've seen has argued that it doesn't.

And nobody denies that offenders shouldn't go to prison, so we are all in line?

Glass fused light

Wanderer78 wrote: »

thankfully ive never had the chance, but a some stage we have to realise, our current approach to these issues is nothing but diabolic

What's your solution for a paid hitman convicted of killing the target of the hit and an innocent bystander?

Or how about a man who has been convicted of killing a woman for his sexual pleasure?

Grayson

No

Chewbacca wrote: »

Um yeah sure...I hope they "learn their lesson".

Listen, if someone intentionally takes someone elses life, there should be no release, there should be no rehabilitation, there should be no touchy feelyness given to them.

They intentionally killed someone. Im not concerned with them potentially reoffending as they shouldnt be let walk the streets again. Im not concerned with using them as a deterrent against future crimes by other people. Im not concerned if they decide to kill anyone else while they are in prison.

In my opinion, if you have intentionally killed someone you have waived your rights to any type of a life.

Except every murder is different. You could have a woman who's been beaten every day for years. She then lashes out at the husband one day. You could have someone defending themselves. You could have someone taking revenge for the death of a loved one. You could have someone killing a spouse because they don't want to be married. Hannah Arendt talked about the intentionality of the action rather than the action itself. Why someone killed is as important as the fact that they killed.

Each of those scenarios is different and we need to be able to adapt to the situation as it arises. I do think there are people who are currently beyond rehabilitation. The criminally insane for want of a better word. But there are others who could be rehabilitated. A blanket sentence on everyone for the same crime doesn't make sense.

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Harika wrote: »

And nobody denies that offenders shouldn't go to prison, so we are all in line?

Several people have argued that "prison isn't a deterrent"and variations thereof, which one can only presume means they are against the concept of prisons, or am I reading them incorrectly?

Signore Fancy Pants

This post has been deleted.

Harika

Gravelly wrote: »

Several people have argued that "prison isn't a deterrent"and variations thereof, which one can only presume means they are against the concept of prisons, or am I reading them incorrectly?

Yes you are reading that incorrectly, prison doesn't deter people else countries with the strictest punishments would have the lowest prison populations, what is not happening. Even the contrary, countries that put more money into rehabilitation instead of harsher sentences have lower return rates.
Cause do you really think a criminal is studying the law book before committing a crime?

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Harika wrote: »

Yes you are reading that incorrectly, prison doesn't deter people else countries with the strictest punishments would have the lowest prison populations, what is not happening. Even the contrary, countries that put more money into rehabilitation instead of harsher sentences have lower return rates.
Cause do you really think a criminal is studying the law book before committing a crime?

Yet again, you are arguing a point that wasn't made. I asked if the people who are against the concept of prison believed that there should be no prisons. You, again, go off on a completely different tangent. It makes you look dishonest if you wont at least attempt to debate the points raised, rather than points you raise yourself and attribute to other posters.

Sore_toe

Wanderer78 wrote: »

thankfully ive never had the chance, but a some stage we have to realise, our current approach to these issues is nothing but diabolic

The problem with our current approach is its too Liberal as is the case with everything in this country

The parents of scumbags need hard questions asked and there welfare cut, enough of this blaming every crime on inequality, most people in Ireland were poor sixty years ago, they were still decent

seamus

Who is against the concept of prison?

Wanderer78

Sore_toe wrote: »

The problem with our current approach is its too Liberal as is the case with everything in this country

too liberal, please explain?

Sore_toe

Gravelly wrote: »

Apparently all he needs is a hug and a college certificate, and he'd be as right as rain.

Or if he lived in a fully fledged socialist state, he'd be right as rain, oh wait,. These guys don't do those things out of any political position, they do it because they are plain bad, nothing more mundane than that

The problems in Ireland today such as crime stem from the fact that it's all Liberal thought operating behind the scenes

Sore_toe

Wanderer78 wrote: »

too liberal, please explain?

No way I'm going down an ideological rabbit hole with you where you blame neo liberalism for anto gaining fifty convictions before his. 20th birthday

Wanderer78

Sore_toe wrote: »

No way I'm going down an ideological rabbit hole with you where you blame neo liberalism for anto gaining fifty convictions before his. 20th birthday

fair enough

Harika

Gravelly wrote: »

Yet again, you are arguing a point that wasn't made. I asked if the people who are against the concept of prison believed that there should be no prisons. You, again, go off on a completely different tangent. It makes you look dishonest if you wont at least attempt to debate the points raised, rather than points you raise yourself and attribute to other posters.

No you assume what people want to say while they say something different. :rolleyes:

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

seamus wrote: »

Who is against the concept of prison?

Lots of you it would seem:

Wanderer78 wrote: »

incarceration is a fairly **** way of dealing with complex human behavioural problems, effectively creating an 'out of sight, out of mind' approach, which in fact is highly reactive towards these issues

Wanderer78 wrote: »

In the individual case, maybe, but that may not work within the confines of incarceration, many a murder has occurred within prisons

Grayson wrote: »

I've mentioned it before on boards but revenge and vengeance come from a very primal place. Seeing people punished releases feel good endorphins. It's a very base human emotion. So it makes perfect sense that we want to see people punished.

However logically it doesn't make sense. It does nothing to protect people. Someone who robs and assaults someone goes to prison. Let's say they get out 5 years later. They could do it again. We have 5 years to try and change that person. To try and rehabilitate them. We should do everything we can. But rather than do that we punish them. We justify it because we say punishment is a deterrent even though we now know it isn't. Really we do it because it feels good.

Our approach to criminality should be evidence based best practice. Not what feels good.

Grayson wrote: »

That was the point of prisons and still is in Ireland. The point people are making here is that it doesn't make society any better

seamus wrote: »

If you don't care about rehabilitation, then why release anyone? If the purpose of locking someone up for a short amount of time, isn't to discourage them from doing it again, then why let them out at all? Why is permanent incarceration not the punishment for all crime?

If you want a prison system that just punishes offenders, then you should just lock all offenders up for life. Why release them at all?

Grayson wrote: »

But why the need to punish? Like I mentioned before it's a human desire to see people punished. Punishment rarely works as a deterrent or to prevent reoffending.

Harika wrote: »

What has shown the least return rate is education and apprenticeships.

Grayson wrote: »

I don't murder and rape because I might go to prison if i do. Prison sentences aren't what keep people in line.
.

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Harika wrote: »

No you assume what people want to say while they say something different. :rolleyes:

Nope, basing it on exactly what they say in their posts, unlike you, who answers points that were never made!

seamus

Gravelly wrote: »

Lots of you it would seem:

Eh, no, I don't see any of that there.

Try again maybe?

Hint: "Prison" is a place, not a concept.

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

seamus wrote: »

Eh, no, I don't see any of that there.

Try again maybe?

Of course you don't, because you don't want to. That's fine, as you are a little embarrassed by you idealogical position.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The should have more reform than punishment

seamus wrote: »

This is why I don't really understand those who would oppose rehabilitation.

If you don't care about rehabilitation, then why release anyone? If the purpose of locking someone up for a short amount of time, isn't to discourage them from doing it again, then why let them out at all? Why is permanent incarceration not the punishment for all crime?

Of course, at a fundamental level the purpose of a fixed prison sentence, is to discourage reoffending.

And once you accept that simple fact, then you can begin to understand why reforming prison to further reduce reoffending should be the aim of all prison systems, even if we don't get to satisfy our violent revenge fantasies.

If you want a prison system that just punishes offenders, then you should just lock all offenders up for life. Why release them at all?

You’ve actually made the case against rehabilitation as the primary reason for incarceration there, yourself.

For if prison wasn’t about deterrent or punishment, and was in fact primarily about rehabilitation, then career criminals, or suspected career criminals would be incarcerated for life, subject to the whims of a parole board and other worthies. If the board deemed somebody a risk to society and unreformed he would stay in. I know that applies to some life sentences now in some jurisdictions, but it is limited. With a full rehabilitate system you could get life for minor crimes.

Since somebody who is born in a criminal environment probably isn’t going to stop being a mafia or Mexican drug cartel member, just because he’s learned to cook and sew in prison, a State could lock gang members up for life as unreformable.

(The opposite of that is that somebody who has committed a serious crime but is genuinely remorseful could get off immediately but in practice I wouldn’t see this happen).

Authoritarian states often had rehabilitation programs for political “deviants”. Rehabilitation isn’t as liberal as people who promote it think.

On the other hand punishment is simple. 2 years for that crime because it’s not as bad as that other one which gets 10 years.

seamus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You’ve actually made the case against rehabilitation as the primary reason for incarceration there, yourself.

For if prison wasn’t about deterrent or punishment, and was in fact primarily about rehabilitation, then career criminals, or suspected career criminals, would be incarcerated for life, subject to the whims of a parole board and other worthies. If they deemed somebody a risk to society and unreformed he would stay in.

Yep, that sounds reasonable. If someone cannot be rehabilitated, then it makes no sense to set them free to reoffend.

You need alternative solutions to house these people appropriately away from the main population and other offenders.

With a full rehabilitate system you could get life for minor crimes.

Now you're making a leap and you're assuming the system would have to take a "3 strikes" approach or similar, take a hard line. It doesn't.

For example, if someone spends 5 years inside for a serious assault and five years after release gets done on a small possession charge, that doesn't require that he be locked up permanently. It also doesn't mean his original rehabilitation failed.

Some classes of crimes, like robbery and assault, see habitual reoffenders. Others, such as murder, don't. If someone is done for assault and released, and then never assaults someone again, then they've been rehabilitated - even if they get done for another unrelated class of crime at some other time.

Since somebody who is born in a criminal environment probably isn’t going to stop being a mafia, or Mexican drug cartel member just because he’s learned to cook and sew in prison State’s could lock gang members up for life as unreformable.

This is pure opinion and has no bearing on the discussion. The statistics show otherwise.

On the other hand punishment is simple. 2 years for that crime because it’s not as bad as that other one which gets 10 years.

Right. But if you don't care about the rehabilitation (or if it's a secondary purpose), then why let them out at all? Why waste your time and money continually having to catch and punish the same people for breaking the law? Just lock them up permanently when they break the law and problem solved.

That's a rhetorical question; you release them in the hope that they won't have to be punished again. In the hope that they've "learned their lesson". Because you hope they've been rehabilitated.

So why should we not try to enhance the effectiveness of rehabilitation as much as possible?

Grayson

No

Gravelly wrote: »

Lots of you it would seem:

You quoted me three times there. can you point out where I said I was against prisons? I've simply said that we can and should attempt to rehabilitate when people are imprisoned. I never said i was against prisons

It's a really bad attempt to misrepresent what i said.

You also quoted my post where I said we should have a best practice evidence based approach. Can I assume since you quoted it you're against evidence based approaches? You think research is bad?

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Grayson wrote: »

You quoted me three times there. can you point out where I said I was against prisons? I've simply said that we can and should attempt to rehabilitate when people are imprisoned. I never said i was against

It's a really bad attempt to misrepresent what i said.

You also quoted my post where I said we should have a best practice evidence based approach. Can I assume since you quoted it you're against evidence based approaches? You think research is bad?

I quoted you. If you don't like what's in those quotes, tough.

I don't even know what to say to the strawman in your second paragraph, other than toask you to look back at my posts where I myself have quoted that the evidence from numerous studies (as well as real life scenarios) is that without some kind of punishment, criminal behaviour increases.

Grayson

No

Gravelly wrote: »

I quoted you. If you don't like what's in those quotes, tough.

I don't even know what to say to the strawman in your second paragraph, other than toask you to look back at my posts where I myself have quoted that the evidence from numerous studies (as well as real life scenarios) is that without some kind of punishment, criminal behaviour increases.

You said I was against prisons. I'm not. I haven't said it, I haven't implied it. The posts you quoted say no such thing. It looks like you just randomly quoted posts. Show me how anything I said implies I'm against prisons.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The should have more reform than punishment

seamus wrote: »

Yep, that sounds reasonable. If someone cannot be rehabilitated, then it makes no sense to set them free to reoffend.

You need alternative solutions to house these people appropriately away from the main population and other offenders.

Don’t agree with that at all. If the crime merits a punishment of x years incarceration, that’s it.

Now you're making a leap and you're assuming the system would have to take a "3 strikes" approach or similar, take a hard line. It doesn't.

No I’m assuming it’s a pure rehabilitate prison sentence. Supporters of rehabilitation don’t like to deal with what they mean by rehabilitation - but it has to mean that an official body decides when someone is released.

For example, if someone spends 5 years inside for a serious assault and five years after release gets done on a small possession charge, that doesn't require that he be locked up permanently. It also doesn't mean his original rehabilitation failed.

He actually may not be released after 5 years because it would be up to a parole/rehabilitation board. In a full rehabilitation system all subsequent crimes would be an indication of failure to reform and could lead to indefinite incarceration.

Some classes of crimes, like robbery and assault, see habitual reoffenders. Others, such as murder, don't. If someone is done for assault and released, and then never assaults someone again, then they've been rehabilitated - even if they get done for another unrelated class of crime at some other time.

What happens if they do assault again? Is there any reason to ever release them again the first parole/rehabilitation board failed to protect society? As for murder not being habitual, that’s true but in a pure rehabilitation system it would mean low, or no, incarceration for murder. We’d all get one shot at that.

This is pure opinion and has no bearing on the discussion. The statistics show otherwise.

Really? The stats show that mafia members reform?

Right. But if you don't care about the rehabilitation (or if it's a secondary purpose), then why let them out at all? Why waste your time and money continually having to catch and punish the same people for breaking the law? Just lock them up permanently when they break the law and problem solved.

I like the way you answered this for me. In the “that’s a rhethorical question” part. I won’t quote it.

I made this clear. In a punishment system you match the punishment to the crime. Once done your done. If not reformed you get arrested for the next crime, but only when caught and convicted.

It’s not about protecting society after you get out, except during the parole period (but your sentence isn’t over then) and it’s only partially about deterrent. Once you’ve done your crime you’ve repaid your debt. Hopefully you are now reformed by the length of the time you spent in there and some programs you may have taken, but that’s not necessary for release. Rehabilitation is a nice to have but doesn’t affect your release.

Nothing illiberal about that system. Rehabilitation with its echoes of the Soviets sounds sinister.

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Grayson wrote: »

You said I was against prisons. I'm not. I haven't said it, I haven't implied it. The posts you quoted say no such thing. It looks like you just randomly quoted posts. Show me how anything I said implies I'm against prisons.

Again? Jaysus you're persistent.

Grayson wrote: »

I've mentioned it before on boards but revenge and vengeance come from a very primal place. Seeing people punished releases feel good endorphins. It's a very base human emotion. So it makes perfect sense that we want to see people punished.

However logically it doesn't make sense. It does nothing to protect people. Someone who robs and assaults someone goes to prison. Let's say they get out 5 years later. They could do it again. We have 5 years to try and change that person. To try and rehabilitate them. We should do everything we can. But rather than do that we punish them. We justify it because we say punishment is a deterrent even though we now know it isn't. Really we do it because it feels good.

Our approach to criminality should be evidence based best practice. Not what feels good.

The post above. Are you, or are you not, arguing against punishing crime? The only punishment for serious crime in this country is prison time. Therefore, you appear to be arguing against prison. If you are not, perhaps you should make it clearer for those of us who can only read your words, and not your mind.

Grayson wrote: »

That was the point of prisons and still is in Ireland. The point people are making here is that it doesn't make society any better

See above again. Is this not arguing against prison? Do the words you use mean something different to the usual understanding of them?

Grayson wrote: »

But why the need to punish? Like I mentioned before it's a human desire to see people punished. Punishment rarely works as a deterrent or to prevent reoffending.

And again.......

Grayson wrote: »

I don't murder and rape because I might go to prison if i do. Prison sentences aren't what keep people in line.
.

Slightly different tack this time, but the same argument - you say prison sentences don't keep people in line - the only meaning any normal person can draw from this is that you are against prison sentences.

Are you telling us that, despite consistently arguing against prisons and prison sentences, you actually mean you're all for them? Can you not see how I and others might get the opposite meaning from your posts?

seamus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

No I’m assuming it’s a pure rehabilitate prison sentence. Supporters of rehabilitation don’t like to deal with what they mean by rehabilitation - but it has to mean that an official body decides when someone is released.

And again leaping to a conclusion that anyone is talking about some kind of extreme "pure" rehab system.

You operate on a statistical basis, do the things that work, avoid the things that don't, and avoid getting sucked into black holes of diminishing return.

Much like you treat cancer not by treating it and then continually testing it to make sure it's gone, you embark on a "pathway", that is to say a regime of treatment that you continue right to the end, regardless of whether your tests halfway through tell you it's gone. This approach is based on a taking large-population statistics and then doing the things that statistically have the best final outcome.

Likewise you develop a rehab protocol for given classes of crimes, adjust them to the offender, and apply them and release them when their programme has finished. Observe and study and collate statistics, then adjust the programme to improve the outcome. With the aim of reducing the reoffending rate.

The individual offender is of less relevance; what's relevant is finding a system that results in widespread improvements, not a system that tries to "fix" everyone. Because everyone can't be fixed. All we can do is improve things generally.

The "diminishing returns" thing I refer to is that you'll find that as the length of a programme increases, its effectiveness decreases. So let's say that the assault programme is 3 years long, and after those 3 years, 90% of offenders don't reoffend. You'll find that if you add a fourth year, you can only get that up to 92%. Add a fifth year, and it only becomes 92.5% And so on.

I made this clear. In a punishment system you match the punishment to the crime. Once done your done. If not reformed you get arrested for the next crime, but only when caught and convicted.

And screw society, right? The aim should always be crime reduction, not increased punishment (unless the latter achieves the former). Every crime leaves a victim in its wake. Punishment alone doesn't fix that.

Nothing illiberal about that system. Rehabilitation with its echoes of the Soviets sounds sinister.

G'way with your american identity politics rubbish.

Grayson

No

Gravelly wrote: »

Again? Jaysus you're persistent.




The post above. Are you, or are you not, arguing against punishing crime? The only punishment for serious crime in this country is prison time. Therefore, you appear to be arguing against prison. If you are not, perhaps you should make it clearer for those of us who can only read your words, and not your mind.



See above again. Is this not arguing against prison? Do the words you use mean something different to the usual understanding of them?



And again.......



Slightly different tack this time, but the same argument - you say prison sentences don't keep people in line - the only meaning any normal person can draw from this is that you are against prison sentences.

Are you telling us that, despite consistently arguing against prisons and prison sentences, you actually mean you're all for them? Can you not see how I and others might get the opposite meaning from your posts?

None of those are arguments against prisons. I've been saying the prisons need to rehabilitate. I'm not saying to get rid of them. If you want to say I'm against prison as a punishment by itself then you're right. However I'm not against prisons I'm saying that we can do more with them. When people are locked up we need to do more for rehabilitation because it will cut down offenses in the long run.
That is not an argument against prisons. At no point did I say or imply that we need to get rid of prisons or stop sentencing people to prison.

All evidence points to the fact that having a good rehabilitation cuts down reoffending. that decreases crime. And that's a good thing.

Gravelly

The should have more reform than punishment

Grayson wrote: »

None of those are arguments against prisons. I've been saying the prisons need to rehabilitate. I'm not saying to get rid of them. If you want to say I'm against prison as a punishment by itself then you're right. However I'm not against prisons I'm saying that we can do more with them. When people are locked up we need to do more for rehabilitation because it will cut down offenses in the long run.
That is not an argument against prisons. At no point did I say or imply that we need to get rid of prisons or stop sentencing people to prison.

All evidence points to the fact that having a good rehabilitation cuts down reoffending. that decreases crime. And that's a good thing.

That's much clearer. I myself believe that rehabilitation is essential, however, unlike many here (I won't include yourself as I'm not sure at this stage what your position is!) I believe that punishment is also an essential element. Without punishment, we as a society are saying, both to criminals and victims, that crime doesn't matter, and that nobody is responsible for what they do. To me, a prison system run like a holiday camp gives the wrong message to everyone.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Donald Trump wrote: »

Life sentence is for life as far as I know



They might let you out of the prison building but you are still under the sentence for life


That is why it is named as such

Ya, you can be sent back to prison to continue the sentence at any time. The State also reserve the right to never release the prisoner. There's people in prison today who were convicted in the 1970s.

Average time served these days for a Life sentence in Ireland is 22 years.

Much harsher than it once was.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The should have more reform than punishment

seamus wrote: »

And again leaping to a conclusion that anyone is talking about some kind of extreme "pure" rehab system.

That’s exactly what you were suggesting. Until called on it.

G'way with your american identity politics rubbish.

Lol. There’s literally no mention of identity or politics or America in my posts.

The Soviet Union had a rehabilitation prison system. So did China. A rehabilitation system in the US would imprison more blacks as it would be politicised.

The liberal democratic incarceration system is to match the punishment to the crime

Franz Von Peppercorn

The should have more reform than punishment

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Ya, you can be sent back to prison to continue the sentence at any time. The State also reserve the right to never release the prisoner. There's people in prison today who were convicted in the 1970s.

Average time served these days for a Life sentence in Ireland is 22 years.

Much harsher than it once was.

That high? I read 8-12 years but that might have been for murder, not all of which is life.

_Kaiser_

Do the crime, do the time.

And by definition that should be a punishment and a loss of freedoms or comforts you'd have on the outside. Not sky TV, cell phones and whatever else some seem to be suggesting these prisoners "deserve".

Given how lenient our justice system is anyway, it's hard enough to get serious/repeat offenders into prison for a long stretch anyway without making it actually appealing... Rent free, 3 meals a day, TV, radio, drugs, Skype calls... :rolleyes:

Left wing nonsense going to far once again. No wonder there's an increasing backlash against this stuff in Western countries.

seamus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s exactly what you were suggesting. Until called on it.

Sure, fire away there and completely misrepresent the whole discussion. That's not a waste of anyone's time.

Lol. There’s literally no mention of identity or politics or America in my posts.

The Soviet Union had a rehabilitation prison system. So did China. A rehabilitation system in the US would imprison more blacks as it would be politicised.

It's funny to see those two paragraphs side by side, sneering at one another.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The should have more reform than punishment

seamus wrote: »

Sure, fire away there and completely misrepresent the whole discussion.

If you want to explain better what you mean do that you can be represented better, feel free to do so. Tell us how you would handle a rehabilitated child murderer who is genuinely sorry vs a minor criminal arrested for the 3rd time who isn’t. You keep not getting, not engaging, with the fact that rehabilitation based justice systems are injust , arbitrary and politicised.

That's not a waste of anyone's time.
It's funny to see those two paragraphs side by side, sneering at one another.

I don’t think you know, and I certainly don’t what the phrase “American identity politics” meant when you criticised my factual assertion that communist states used prison to “rehabilitate” people - generally political prisoners.

AllForIt

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Do the crime, do the time.

And by definition that should be a punishment and a loss of freedoms or comforts you'd have on the outside. Not sky TV, cell phones and whatever else some seem to be suggesting these prisoners "deserve".

Given how lenient our justice system is anyway, it's hard enough to get serious/repeat offenders into prison for a long stretch anyway without making it actually appealing... Rent free, 3 meals a day, TV, radio, drugs, Skype calls... :rolleyes:

Left wing nonsense going to far once again. No wonder there's an increasing backlash against this stuff in Western countries.

If I was told I couldn't leave my apartment for a month, not step outside or stick my head out the window I think I'd go crazy even if I could still watch TV and use the internet.

My point is I don't think ppl really consider what it's like to be incarcerated for lengthy periods of time - it makes me shudder at the though of it. That's why I don't accept this 'chushy number in prison' argument.

NinetyTwoTeam

No

Its fine to say they shouldn't have this or that but you've likely never ran a prison, it's much easier to deal with inmates who are not both bored and angry about the conditions.

and after doing a long stretch most of the criminals are much older and less likely to commit a similar offense, but for the victims and families of the victims it must be sickening when the person is released.

but it's a money saving thing, that's all. it should be minimum 20 years for life though IMO.