Prison Numbers Hit New Highs.

[Hawkeye Pearce]

Interesting report http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/story/0,,1861604,00.html
On prison numbers increasing to new highs due to the "get tough" regimes of Howard/Straw/Blunkett. I wonder how long before another Strangeways type incident occurs?

 

[Belushi]

Can't be any space left by now.

 

[Roadkill]

Britain has a higher proportion of its population in the nick than most other European countries, and among the highest rates of recidivism.

'Prison works.'

 

[agricola]

Interesting report http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/story/0,,1861604,00.html
On prison numbers increasing to new highs due to the "get tough" regimes of Howard/Straw/Blunkett. I wonder how long before another Strangeways type incident occurs?

Overcrowding is a concern, but the answer is to build more prisons, not to let more people out.

Also, far be it from me to praise the Conservative Party but only Howard's tenure at the Home Office could ever be described as "get tough" - rather than "acting tough but doing nothing", as in the case of the other two. The fact that - as the Guardian notes - the rise is due to them actually enforcing breaches of licence should demonstrate that fairly clearly.

 

[agricola]

Britain has a higher proportion of its population in the nick than most other European countries, and among the highest rates of recidivism.

'Prison works.'

Prison does work.

 

[Roadkill]

Prison does work.

"Britain has a higher proportion of its population in the nick than most other European countries, and among the highest rates of recidivism."

Doesn't really suggest that it works, does it?

 

[agricola]

"Britain has a higher proportion of its population in the nick than most other European countries, and among the highest rates of recidivism."

Doesn't really suggest that it works, does it?

How many burglaries, or robberies, are committed by those in prison?

The whole argument that prison reforms people, or scares them into not committing crime, is probably flawed. Where it does work is in separating people who would otherwise be committing crimes from those who would be preyed upon.

 

[untethered]

"Britain has a higher proportion of its population in the nick than most other European countries, and among the highest rates of recidivism."

Doesn't really suggest that it works, does it?

That's because all their criminals come over here.


























Hey, it's a joke, OK?

 

[Roadkill]

How many burglaries, or robberies, are committed by those in prison?

The whole argument that prison reforms people, or scares them into not committing crime, is probably flawed. Where it does work is in separating people who would otherwise be committing crimes from those who would be preyed upon.

But not for very long, and it seems to do bugger all to change the behaviour of those who might be doing the mugging and burgling so that they go straight back to it when they come out again.

And that's always been the case, no matter what the 'get tough' brigade say. Some of the young people from the 19th century - at a time when prison much more resembled the 'get tough' brigade's dreams - I've done research into used to refer to prison as 'college.'

Of course prisons are necessary, especially for people who are dangerous, but they've not exactly got a sparkling record at deterring crime or preventing reoffending.

 

[Hawkeye Pearce]

So you throw people inside for a few years and they come out just as bad or perhaps worse. Who precisely gains? No-one as far as i can see as long as the reoffender rate is as high as it is.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Overcrowding is a concern, but the answer is to build more prisons, not to let more people out.

Also, far be it from me to praise the Conservative Party but only Howard's tenure at the Home Office could ever be described as "get tough" - rather than "acting tough but doing nothing", as in the case of the other two. The fact that - as the Guardian notes - the rise is due to them actually enforcing breaches of licence should demonstrate that fairly clearly.

Even under Howard there was a lot of "window dressing", and also you can probably lay a lot of blame for the lack of development of new prisons at his door, as his proto-PFI strategy combined with making sure investors' money was safe has meant that private finance only wants to build low to medium security prisons, the lower the better.
Which pretty much wiped out what he'd managed to do with reference to reducing the overcrowding he inherited.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Prison does work.

No, it "warehouses".
As a set of penal regimes which have as their core concern not only the holding of prisoners, but the rehabiliation of same, they work very poorly.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So you throw people inside for a few years and they come out just as bad or perhaps worse. Who precisely gains? No-one as far as i can see as long as the reoffender rate is as high as it is.

The private finance companies who run some of the prisons. Their overheads are cheaper, so if they come in under their tender (and they nearly always do once set-up costs are out of the way) they're laughing.

 

[Haller]

Does anyone know where there are figures for prison population over a reasonably long period of time, say the last 50 years?

I'd be interested to know if there are ever any substantial falls or whether it's a continuously rising graph.

 

[brasicritique]

KIds are leaving school with no qualifications or a trade and are now also competeing with highly skilled/educated european migrants so of course more prisons are going to be built and of course the prison population is going to continue to grow. And before the fat sweaty pandas of the world choke on ricks poetry i ask you to think of which part of the population this is most likely to effect?

 

[Azrael]

The whole argument that prison reforms people, or scares them into not committing crime, is probably flawed. Where it does work is in separating people who would otherwise be committing crimes from those who would be preyed upon.

No one argues otherwise, but it does little or nothing to stop them re-offending upon release.

The Victorians were half-way there when they instituted a "silent regime" and stopped prisoners talking to each other. The school of crime needs teachers. But they failed woefully in providing the education that would have completed effective rehabilitation.

A combination of hard labour and education could have enormous merits. I wish the bizarre view that prison shouldn't be about punishment was a tabloid myth, but it isn't. All that talk of prisoners being victims of society achieves is keeping rehabilitation off the agenda. (It's not often I agree with Peter Hitchens, but he was spot-on in calling criminal victimhood "a wicked notion".)

Until punishment and rehabilitation are no longer seen as enemies, recidivism will be the only winner.

 

[ViolentPanda]

KIds are leaving school with no qualifications or a trade and are now also competeing with highly skilled/educated european migrants so of course more prisons are going to be built and of course the prison population is going to continue to grow. And before the fat sweaty pandas of the world choke on ricks poetry i ask you to think of which part of the population this is most likely to effect?

Let's see.

"...so of course more prisons are going to be built".
Wow, true words of wisdom, I'm sure.

Or common bloody sense. Of course more prisons will be built, it's an inescapable conclusion given current criminal justice policy.

Now you can be as sarky as you like, making snide insinuations about about how anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a middle-class student (you really couldn't be more wrong) but your prating on doesn't solve anything, does it?
Oh, and you seem to know an awful lot about "ricks [sic] poetry". You're not one of those sad middle-class wankers revelling in class guilt, are you?

So come on, what would you do to either prevent (or expedite, if that's your thing) a boom in prison numbers?

I notice you're as much of a mug as you were the last time round, btw.

 

[Loki]

That's because all their criminals come over here.

Hey, it's a joke, OK?

 

[ViolentPanda]

No one argues otherwise, but it does little or nothing to stop them re-offending upon release.

The Victorians were half-way there when they instituted a "silent regime" and stopped prisoners talking to each other. The school of crime needs teachers. But they failed woefully in providing the education that would have completed effective rehabilitation.

A combination of hard labour and education could have enormous merits. I wish the bizarre view that prison shouldn't be about punishment was a tabloid myth, but it isn't. All that talk of prisoners being victims of society achieves is keeping rehabilitation off the agenda. (It's not often I agree with Peter Hitchens, but he was spot-on in calling criminal victimhood "a wicked notion".)

Until punishment and rehabilitation are no longer seen as enemies, recidivism will be the only winner.

It makes sense that if one or more of the reasons that a person commits crimes can be tackled/ameliorated via education, then education is a worthwhile part of the penal programme.

Unfortunately we have a nexus of power/control between the media and the political establishment of the UK that operates on the basis of press action/political reaction, the press say "criminal scum", the pols say "mandatory minimum sentences/three strikes and you're out/loss of right to trial by jury" or some other pandering cant.

The criminal justice system should provide a balanced system of adjudication, punishment and rehabilitation. As it is, the emphasis has, for the last 30 years or so, been firmly centred on punishment, with the effect of causing a "convection current" of criminal behaviour, with offenders being drawn into the system, coming out, and then recirculating back into it. The only way to (IMHO) break this cycle is to;
1) Stop overcrowding, so that prisons can function optimally, thus providing the staff and space and time to educate (either academically or vocationally) those offenders that require or desire it.
2) Put an end to the tough talking behavour of politicians and make them concentrate far more on tackling the structural causes of crime.
3) Make punishment commensurate with the offence, and institute, as far as is possible, a system that is predicated on the offender addressing their behaviour (including perhaps restorative justice elements) as a condition for early release/parole.

 

[Azrael]

The only way to (IMHO) break this cycle is to;
1) Stop overcrowding, so that prisons can function optimally, thus providing the staff and space and time to educate (either academically or vocationally) those offenders that require or desire it.
2) Put an end to the tough talking behavour of politicians and make them concentrate far more on tackling the structural causes of crime.
3) Make punishment commensurate with the offence, and institute, as far as is possible, a system that is predicated on the offender addressing their behaviour (including perhaps restorative justice elements) as a condition for early release/parole.

I've no problem with the first option, or stopping politicians' inane "tough on crime" rhetoric.

But talk of "structural causes" has led the Left down a blind ally, and, unintentionally, fuelled authoritarian policies by treating crime as a "disease" any of us could catch. (We're all potential criminals, so we should all loose our rights.) Criminology has yet to identify, with any degree of certainty, what these "structural causes" are (if they exist at all). If it ever does, they should never, ever be used to evade personal reponsibility. Explaining crime and excusing crime are clean different things.

It's an obvious truth that prisons shouldn't be used as dumping grounds for the mentally ill and drug addicts, but beyond that, focus on the thing guaranteed to give results, rehabilitating proven criminals, and not looking for nebulous, vague and sweeping problems in society.

Similarly, rewarding criminals for "addressing their behavouir" is an obvious recipe for criminal deception. In its compassion, left-wing criminology forgets that the criminal classes are packed with devious people who'll jump on any excuse to wriggle off the hook. They might be damaged, but the vast majority are not in any way, shape or form, "victims". When dealing with people who work on a primitive moral code where any form of weakness is instantly exploited, it's vital that humane justice does not become weak justice.

When it does, authoritarians are just waiting to pounce.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Has there ever been a year when prison numbers have gone down? Just idle curiosity, I'm not making a point, just wondering.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've no problem with the first option, or stopping politicians' inane "tough on crime" rhetoric.

But talk of "structural causes" has led the Left down a blind ally, and, unintentionally, fuelled authoritarian policies by treating crime as a "disease" any of us could catch. (We're all potential criminals, so we should all loose our rights.) Criminology has yet to identify, with any degree of certainty, what these "structural causes" are (if they exist at all). If it ever does, they should never, ever be used to evade personal reponsibility. Explaining crime and excusing crime are clean different things.

When I talk about "structural causes" I'm not going off on a James Q. Wilson jag about "broken windows" or about crime as an infection, I'm talking about simple stuff like an education system that is less complacent about failing to help a significant minority of it's charges to achieve basic literacy, and as for criminology, I think you'll find it's the criminologists and their addiction to politicisation rather than the discipline itself that's failed to discern "structural causes". Intellectual onanism isn't conducive to deducing basic principles.
Also, personally I've never used "structural causes" to excuse crime, only to illuminate why a person might tend toward committing a criminal act, and I don't have much respect for those who use it as a blanket "free pass". A criminal act is usually the result of a series of very individual choices, imperatives and desires, and can't be excused or even explained with a pat reference to a single factor such as lack of male role models or poor literacy.
The best we can (and should) do is to give people the tools they need to live honestly.

It's an obvious truth that prisons shouldn't be used as dumping grounds for the mentally ill and drug addicts, but beyond that, focus on the thing guaranteed to give results, rehabilitating proven criminals, and not looking for nebulous, vague and sweeping problems in society.

With respect, bollocks.
Yes, rehabilitate proven criminals, but if you address the problems of a psychiatric patient (both the problems intrinsic to their psyche and the external factors that have influence) in the community and have programmes in place that help people to help themselves, and to catch them ewhen they fall, then you do something to avoid the warehousing of people with mental health problems in prison, the same thing goes for addicts.

Similarly, rewarding criminals for "addressing their behavouir" is an obvious recipe for criminal deception.

That depends upon what you take "addressing their behaviour" to mean. It's fairly obvious that you have preconceived opinions. Care to share them?

In its compassion, left-wing criminology forgets that the criminal classes are packed with devious people who'll jump on any excuse to wriggle off the hook. They might be damaged, but the vast majority are not in any way, shape or form, "victims". When dealing with people who work on a primitive moral code where any form of weakness is instantly exploited, it's vital that humane justice does not become weak justice.

I too could make some sweeping generalisations about most flavours of criminology and their various failings and blindspots, but I'm not interested in a pissing contest.

When it does, authoritarians are just waiting to pounce.

Authoritarians are always waiting to pounce. They tend to be opportunists. It's part of their make-up.

 

[Azrael]

When I talk about "structural causes" I'm not going off on a James Q. Wilson jag about "broken windows" or about crime as an infection, I'm talking about simple stuff like an education system that is less complacent about failing to help a significant minority of it's charges to achieve basic literacy, and as for criminology, I think you'll find it's the criminologists and their addiction to politicisation rather than the discipline itself that's failed to discern "structural causes". Intellectual onanism isn't conducive to deducing basic principles.

Exactly my point; criminology's as responsible as anyone.

Also, personally I've never used "structural causes" to excuse crime, only to illuminate why a person might tend toward committing a criminal act, and I don't have much respect for those who use it as a blanket "free pass". A criminal act is usually the result of a series of very individual choices, imperatives and desires, and can't be excused or even explained with a pat reference to a single factor such as lack of male role models or poor literacy.
The best we can (and should) do is to give people the tools they need to live honestly.

I'm not convinced you can identify specific "pre-criminals" with any degree of accuracy (and I think trying is a recipe for authoritarianism) but I have no problem improving education and opportunity across the board. However preventing crime should be incidental.

With respect, bollocks.
Yes, rehabilitate proven criminals, but if you address the problems of a psychiatric patient (both the problems intrinsic to their psyche and the external factors that have influence) in the community and have programmes in place that help people to help themselves, and to catch them ewhen they fall, then you do something to avoid the warehousing of people with mental health problems in prison, the same thing goes for addicts.

Erm, by singling out addicts and the mentally ill, I was saying we should do exactly that! My point was, we shouldn't go further and try and identify criminal demographics, like some latter-day phrenology. (I don't know if you're advocating this, but many do.) The notion that "poverty causes crime" has not created understanding and compassion, it's prompted Labour to collect the DNA of the perceived underclass en masse.

That depends upon what you take "addressing their behaviour" to mean. It's fairly obvious that you have preconceived opinions. Care to share them?

No preconceived ideas about "addressing their behaviour", just that it shouldn't buy criminals early parole. I find the notion that accepting guilt should be rewarded rather perverse. It's the minimum that should be expected, and rewarding convicts invites false atonement and parole board manipulation.

I too could make some sweeping generalisations about most flavours of criminology and their various failings and blindspots, but I'm not interested in a pissing contest.

That's blasphemy in P&P!

Authoritarians are always waiting to pounce. They tend to be opportunists. It's part of their make-up.

Agreed, so progressive opinion should be extra-careful not to give them the opportunity needlessly.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

<wanders in>

Er . . . if you can't do the time, don't do the crime

<wanders off>

 

[detective-boy]

it's vital that humane justice does not become weak justice.

I think that is absolutely essential. It is also something which has been a consistent failing with many, many attempts to reform criminal justice.

I have most experience of it at the entry level (policing). You could portray community policing as being equivalent humane justice in that it reduces the stick and increases the carrot and focuses on helping people deal with the problems which directly affect them. But I have seen many community policing initiatives founder because they lack an inner strength or robustness and so they become seen as weak by those who wish to continue with a criminal lifestyle and become ineffective (and, at worst, additional victims).

I knew a very good Home Beat officer in the 80s, who did all the community stuff really well - no-one on his beat didn't know him and the amount of information he gathered was fantastic. But he had entirely given away his power of arrest which totally undermined any respect the troublemakers had for him. The worst example I was aware of was when he came wandering into the CID office, asking if we could go and arrest two (particularly bad) youths who he had witnessed breaking into a shop whilst on patrol. He hadn't chased them and he didn't see it as being part of his job to pursue the incident and arrest them himself because "I'm the Home Beat officer - I'm not supposed to arrest people" ...

The most effective Home Beat officer at the time had a very different approach - I was with him one evening when we caught some kids (about 13-14, on the brink of "proper" crime) doing some (very minor) tagging. He had a long chat with them in which he explained that (a) he was their friend, he always try to treat them fairly and they had nothing to fear from him ... but (b) if he found out they had committed any crime then he would be the first in line to nick them and they could rest assured they would stay nicked. He them made them go and get some stuff to clean the tags off which they did.
He regularly nicked the offenders on his beat but when they had done nothing wrong he always stopped and had a laugh and a joke with them. Even those he nicked regularly seemed to like him and respect him.

I think the whole criminal justice system needs to try and achieve the "iron fist in velvet glove" approach if it is to remain effective whilst being humane.

 

[brasicritique]

Has there ever been a year when prison numbers have gone down? Just idle curiosity, I'm not making a point, just wondering.

Hello Mrs Magpie just to hazard a guess the years post 1918 post 1946 oh and they also came down when people were being sent to lovely places like Australia for free

Ok one down. One to go

Now you can be as sarky as you like, making snide insinuations about about how anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a middle-class student (you really couldn't be more wrong)

No no my dear sweaty one the majority of people on these boards are mc are they or are they not? Some are good some are bad and some are ugly. There are also those wc posters who hate their own class and people from it just to impress their mc friends because they really despise who they are ie sweaty people and kyberdossas etc they also despise the wc for not worshipping at the 1 watt and rapidly dimming light bulb alter that is marx

but your prating on doesn't solve anything, does it?

Thus spake the mighty panda healer of social rifts and divisions. Bringer of peace to the middle east. I would like to know what you have solved apart from the age old mystery of being able to speak from the anus.

Oh, and you seem to know an awful lot about "ricks [sic] poetry". You're not one of those sad middle-class wankers revelling in class guilt, are you?

Yah I am… like I shop in fresh and wild with mc5 because they price poor people out which is like good as they really drain my karma after an intense yoga workout..

So come on, what would you do to either prevent (or expedite, if that's your thing) a boom in prison numbers?

I can tell you what I would not do; Cite Marx or treat your ideas with anything but the utter contempt they deserve. To tackle the issue sufficiently would need more than a few threads by dated and ideologically out of touch 1980s lefties. w

What do you do with people who are surplus to the capitalist system when the capitalist system requires this excess of people to maintain a modus operandi for control. The education system helps produce this excess as does the teaching profession and so called education experts.

I notice you're as much of a mug as you were the last time round, btw

Don’t you mean Tea cup Rick?

I say again which part of the population this is most likely to effect
?
Footlights Panda..

 

[ViolentPanda]

Now you can be as sarky as you like, making snide insinuations about about how anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a middle-class student (you really couldn't be more wrong)

No no my dear sweaty one the majority of people on these boards are mc are they or are they not? Some are good some are bad and some are ugly. There are also those wc posters who hate their own class and people from it just to impress their mc friends because they really despise who they are ie sweaty people and kyberdossas etc they also despise the wc for not worshipping at the 1 watt and rapidly dimming light bulb alter that is marx

Who gives a fuck about Marx, you two-penny tossrag?

BTW, how do you know that "majority of people on these boards are mc"? I'm betting this is another of your fevered assumptions.

but your prating on doesn't solve anything, does it?

Thus spake the mighty panda healer of social rifts and divisions. Bringer of peace to the middle east. I would like to know what you have solved apart from the age old mystery of being able to speak from the anus.

Ah, the age-old tedium of a fuckwit without an answer attempting an insult.

Don't bother, you're shite at it.

Oh, and you seem to know an awful lot about "ricks [sic] poetry". You're not one of those sad middle-class wankers revelling in class guilt, are you?

Yah I am… like I shop in fresh and wild with mc5 because they price poor people out which is like good as they really drain my karma after an intense yoga workout..

It wouldn't surprise me. You probably do Pilates and practise aromatherapy too, and still have a completely unfulfilled life.

So come on, what would you do to either prevent (or expedite, if that's your thing) a boom in prison numbers?

I can tell you what I would not do; Cite Marx or treat your ideas with anything but the utter contempt they deserve. To tackle the issue sufficiently would need more than a few threads by dated and ideologically out of touch 1980s lefties.

Mmmm, one problem with that, shithead. I haven't cite Marx at all. Still lets not let fact get in the way of your woefully inaccurate prejudices, eh?

What do you do with people who are surplus to the capitalist system when the capitalist system requires this excess of people to maintain a modus operandi for control. The education system helps produce this excess as does the teaching profession and so called education experts.

Wow, and you have the cheek to have a pop at other people for repeating old stuff.

I notice you're as much of a mug as you were the last time round, btw

Don’t you mean Tea cup Rick?

No, cuntlugs, I mean you are a mug, a sucker, an easy mark.

I say again which part of the population this is most likely to effect
?

The same section it's always affected.

Footlights Panda..

You what?

I'm not one of your Cambridge contemporaries, cuntlugs.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

But not for very long, and it seems to do bugger all to change the behaviour of those who might be doing the mugging and burgling so that they go straight back to it when they come out again.

indeed. I read recently about the suspension of several prison officers "inappropriate relationships"(?) in pentonville(?) in the guardian. there was a report from someone involved in visiting prisons who had found a prisoner in cooking crack in the kitchen! how much coke was smuggled inside? who else was involved? screws? what is this going to do to help him outside?

 

[brasicritique]

You dependency on expletives not only demonstrates your lack of grey matter sweaty one, but also a lack of imagination; hence recycled useless trot babablings.

 

[brasicritique]

I haven't cite Marx at all.