Prisoners paid £750,000 for 'cold turkey' in jail

[Azrael]

To repeat myself again: punishment for its own sake, and atonement through suffering.

 

[Blagsta]

You haven't answered my question.

 

[Blagsta]

* Two thirds of men in prison are diagnosed with a personality disorder and two fifths show symptoms of at least one neurotic disorder such as depression, anxiety and phobias. Among the general population less than a fifth of men are affected by these disorders.
* Men in prison have a high rate of severe mental health problems such as schizophrenia or delusional disorders – nearly ten per cent compared to less than one per cent of the general population.
* One in five men in prison are on prescribed medication such as anti-depressants or anti-psychotic medicine and there is evidence that the use of medication increases whilst in custody.
* One in five male prisoners have attempted suicide at some stage in their life and the same number have previously been admitted for in-patient psychiatric care.

Prison regimes do little to address the mental health needs of prisoners who can be locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day.

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/subsection.asp?id=317

* 52% of male prisoners and 71% of female prisoners have no qualifications at all
* 67% of all prisoners were unemployed at the time of imprisonment
* The number of nationally-recognised qualifications in literacy, language and numeracy achieved by prisoners has risen from 25,300 in 2001-02 to 63,500 in 2004-05.
(Source: Department for Education and Skills, December 2005)

* Half of the 75,000 people in prison gained no qualifications at school and suffer from poor literacy and numeracy skills, according to a survey by the British Dyslexia Association. Around one fifth have hidden disabilities such as dyslexia and other learning difficulties.
(Guardian, 20 April 2005)

* The prison service invites convicted prisoners on reception to volunteer to take a literacy test devised by the Basic Skills Agency which is approximately equivalent to the reading skills expected of 9 to 10-year-olds. The 1998 results showed that 60% had problems with literacy, and 40% had a severe literacy problem.
* In the three years preceding 1998, the prison population grew by nearly 14,000 to 65,600, while spending on inmates' education was cut by nearly £1 million.
* The Social Exclusion Unit in its first report on truancy and exclusion (July 1998) showed the tangled web of problems that lie in the background when young people are excluded from school, or exclude themselves through truancy. Low aspirations, poor literacy and a peer culture that doesn't value education are common culprits.
* In 2002, a Social Exclusion Unit report showed that most prisoners come from socially excluded backgrounds: they are 13 times more likely to have been in care and 14 times more likely to have been unemployed than non-offenders. More than half of all male prisoners and over two thirds of female prisoners have no qualifications.
(Source: Reducing Re-offending by ex-prisoners, Social Exclusion Unit, 2002)

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/stats/keystats3.html




I'm wondering how "hard labour" will address any of these issues?

 

[Azrael]

No, it's just that atonement and retribution don't fit your definition of achievement.

What do you think the convict regime should be?

 

[Blagsta]

Do you really think that hard labour leads to atonement?

a·tone·ment (ə-tōn'mənt) pronunciation
n.

1. Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.
2.
1. Reconciliation or an instance of reconciliation between God and humans.
2. Atonement Christianity. The reconciliation of God and humans brought about by the redemptive life and death of Jesus.
3. Obsolete. Reconciliation; concord.

http://www.answers.com/atonement&r=67

I fail to see how making someone break rocks in the hot sun will lead to reparation or reconciliation. Care to explain?

 

[Azrael]

Do you really think that hard labour leads to atonement?

I fail to see how making someone break rocks in the hot sun will lead to reparation or reconciliation. Care to explain?

As they break rocks they suffer, and that suffering makes amends for the suffering a convict caused others. They owe society a debt, and suffering is a method of repayment that all men, whatever their moral literacy, can achieve equally.

It is also an act of retribution, inflicted on behalf of society.

Do you believe in the concept of punishment?

 

[Blagsta]

As they break rocks they suffer, and that suffering makes amends for the suffering a convict caused others.

How?

 

[Azrael]

How?

Again I find myself pressing replay. Their criminal act caused pain, and creates a moral debt: their own pain repays that debt in kind, by taking from them what they took from others (or as near to without taking eyes for eyes and teeth for teeth).

Again I ask: do you believe in punishment, and what is your preferred penal regime?

 

[Blagsta]

Again I find myself pressing replay. Their criminal act caused pain, and creates a moral debt: their own pain repays that debt in kind, by taking from them what they took from others (or as near to without taking eyes for eyes and teeth for teeth).

That's not atonement. That's revenge. Atonement would be a vandal having to make good the damage he did etc.

Again I ask: do you believe in punishment, and what is your preferred penal regime?

Having your liberty taken away is punishment. Working in a prison workshop for pittance is punishment. Prison should also be about rehabilitation and education. Given the stats I posted above about mental health and literacy amongst prisoners, I'm wondering how your hard labour regime is going to address any of that. Without equipping prisoners with the educational and emotional tools they need to get on in life, they're going to be in and out of prison, with nothing changing.

 

[Azrael]

That's not atonement. That's revenge. Atonement would be a vandal having to make good the damage he did etc.

That's only the most literal definition of atonement. Indirect atonement through suffering is a long-accepted practice (or at least, it was until fashionable reforms got underway last century, and a proper disaster they have been).

Having your liberty taken away is punishment. Working in a prison workshop for pittance is punishment. Prison should also be about rehabilitation and education. Given the stats I posted above about mental health and literacy amongst prisoners, I'm wondering how your hard labour regime is going to address any of that. Without equipping prisoners with the educational and emotional tools they need to get on in life, they're going to be in and out of prison, with nothing changing.

Not enough punishment, not nearly enough. Inadequate punishment has brought prisons into disrepute and fuelled the population's darker instincts as frustration overwhelms compassion.

My hard labour regime wouldn't do much to remedy poor literacy and mental health problems. Not on its own. I have no objection to rehabilitation being used as a companion to hard labour: in fact I consider it essential.

Punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Blagsta]

You still haven't told me what hard labour will achieve, apart from making you feel better. This moral debt - who keeps tabs? How is it measured? How many days hard labour = how much pain? It all seems a little confused.

P.S.
You need to look up what atonement means sometime.

 

[Azrael]

You still haven't told me what hard labour will achieve, apart from making you feel better. This moral debt - who keeps tabs? How is it measured? How many days hard labour = how much pain? It all seems a little confused.

It has confused you if you think atonement through suffering makes me "feel better". It doesn't. Human suffering does not make me feel good. I "feel better" when a jury says "not guilty" and a person hasn't let themselves and society down. But when they say "guilty" I consider punishment a regrettable yet necessary duty.

How to calculate it? Something for jurists and judges to work out. It's no different in principle to calculating the correct time behind bars. (Which you presumably support.)

As with all human creations it will be imperfect, but a damn sight better than subjecting convicts to purposeless warehousing. Do you consider imprisonment alone to be sufficient punishment for violent rapists and murderers?

P.S.
You need to look up what atonement means sometime.

Atonement, in the Christian sense, describes man's salvation through Christ's pain on the Cross. The concept is rooted in suffering. Direct repayment and reconcilliation is only one type of atonement, and not a practical basis for a justice system.

Reparation through suffering is a perfectly valid definition and lies behind the phrase "he has repaid his debt to society".

 

[Blagsta]

It has confused you if you think atonement through suffering makes me "feel better". It doesn't. Human suffering does not make me feel good. I "feel better" when a jury says "not guilty" and a person hasn't let themselves and society down. But when they say "guilty" I consider punishment a regrettable yet necessary duty.

You still haven't explained how pointless labour in any way atones for anything. You seem a bit confused tbh.

How to calculate it? Something for jurists and judges to work out. It's no different in principle to calculating the correct time behind bars. (Which you presumably support.)

As with all human creations it will be imperfect, but a damn sight better than subjecting convicts to purposeless warehousing. Do you consider imprisonment alone to be sufficient punishment for violent rapists and murderers?

Aha. You're ignoring all my points about rehabilitation and education. Well done.

Atonement, in the Christian sense, describes man's salvation through Christ's pain on the Cross. The concept is rooted in suffering. Direct repayment and reconcilliation is only one type of atonement, and not a practical basis for a justice system.

So the word means whatever you want it to mean. I see.

Reparation through suffering is a perfectly valid definition and lies behind the phrase "he has repaid his debt to society".

Only in your dictionaries it seems.

 

[Blagsta]

Look - my point is that making people suffer is a fairly pointless way of achieving anything. You seem to have a one dimensional behavuourist view of humanity. Personally I think its far better to address the underlying causes of crime - mental health problems, lack of education, lack of opportunity, alienation etc. Making people pointlessly suffer is only going to alienate them further.

 

[Azrael]

Aha. You're ignoring all my points about rehabilitation and education. Well done.

For someone who bangs on about my alleged confusion you're doing a fine old job of displaying it yourself. I said rehabilitation was an essential companion to punishment a page back!

So the word means whatever you want it to mean. I see.

Erm, nope, it means what the dictionary, and Christian theology, says it means. From Chambers: "the reconciliation of God and man through the incarnation and death of Christ"; "to give satisfaction or make reparation (for)".

Or, loathed as I am to use it, from dictionary.com: "Theology: the doctrine concerning the reconciliation of God and humankind, esp. as accomplished through the life, suffering, and death of Christ." Also, "satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends." If you further doubt the Christian roots Wikipedia has a fair old stab at it.

Now can we please stop this tedious quibbling about the word "atonement" and move on? I think criminals repay their debt through suffering; you do not. That's the issue here.

Look - my point is that making people suffer is a fairly pointless way of achieving anything. You seem to have a one dimensional behavuourist view of humanity. Personally I think its far better to address the underlying causes of crime - mental health problems, lack of education, lack of opportunity, alienation etc. Making people pointlessly suffer is only going to alienate them further.

Those "causes" rely on an equally one-dimensional circumstantial view of crime.

None of those things "cause" crime. They may, may contribute, along with many other factors, both biological and environmental, to the decision to commit a crime, but crime remains a human choice. People are responsible for their actions. Loose sight of that and criminals become victims who must be helped and never punished. Telling criminals that external factors "cause" crime lets them deny personal responsibility. It invites manipulation of the law and makes society weak in the wrongdoer's eyes. The end of punishment is the end of order, and the end of order invites support for crude authoritarian laws. Freedom demands order.

But punishment is not some abstract moral imperative. It has real practical benefits. It makes the convict aware society considers his action absolutely wrong; it can deter the convict from re-offending; and it is a warning to potential convicts that they will suffer if they err. Most of all, it states unequivocally right and wrong exist, and wrong will not be tolerated. Humans are predators. Anything less and the strongest destroy the freedom and peace of us all.

 

[Blagsta]

For someone who bangs on about my alleged confusion you're doing a fine old job of displaying it yourself. I said rehabilitation was an essential companion to punishment a page back!

Errr...you've completely missed my point. You said something about pointlessley warehousing people - I pointed out that in fact was not my opinion.

Erm, nope, it means what the dictionary, and Christian theology, says it means. From Chambers: "the reconciliation of God and man through the incarnation and death of Christ"; "to give satisfaction or make reparation (for)".

Yes, I posted a definition earlier. You on the other hand are using it to mean retribution, which is not what it means.

Or, loathed as I am to use it, from dictionary.com: "Theology: the doctrine concerning the reconciliation of God and humankind, esp. as accomplished through the life, suffering, and death of Christ." Also, "satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends." If you further doubt the Christian roots Wikipedia has a fair old stab at it.

Now can we please stop this tedious quibbling about the word "atonement" and move on? I think criminals repay their debt through suffering; you do not. That's the issue here.

You haven't been able to adequately explain the process by which suffering provides reparation.

Those "causes" rely on an equally one-dimensional circumstantial view of crime.

None of those things "cause" crime. They may, may contribute, along with many other factors, both biological and environmental, to the decision to commit a crime, but crime remains a human choice. People are responsible for their actions. Loose sight of that and criminals become victims who must be helped and never punished. Telling criminals that external factors "cause" crime lets them deny personal responsibility. It invites manipulation of the law and makes society weak in the wrongdoer's eyes. The end of punishment is the end of order, and the end of order invites support for crude authoritarian laws. Freedom demands order.

You also have a very simplistic view of "choice". Not everyone has the same choices, not everyone is as able as everyone else to make choices. Choice is limited by material and emotional/psychological circumstances.

But punishment is not some abstract moral imperative. It has real practical benefits. It makes the convict aware society considers his action absolutely wrong; it can deter the convict from re-offending; and it is a warning to potential convicts that they will suffer if they err. Most of all, it states unequivocally right and wrong exist, and wrong will not be tolerated. Humans are predators. Anything less and the strongest destroy the freedom and peace of us all.

What a shit view of humans you have.

 

[detective-boy]

This is just not true. Maybe you were a good conscientous cop. Plenty aren't. Being denied methadone by the police when arrested is sadly all too common.

The police have no say in it.

I am not making it up. Read the PACE Codes of Practice. Speak to a criminal lawyer. Speak to a Lay Advisor.

If someone is in police detention and is ill and / or asks for a doctor a doctor is called. The doctor decides what is and is not appropriate (and it is usually NOT methadone unless the person is already on a methadone prescription (for the simple reason that it would be entirely inappropriate to prescribe it for a period of detention of a couple of days without any way of continuing it)), but that is an entirely medical decision. Whatever medication is prescribed is recorded in the custody record. Every interview requires a doctor to certify suitability first. Every tape starts with a verbal confirmation of the interviewee being OK and they, or their brief can (and do) bring up any concerns.

You could criticise the medical regime for people in police detention but it is NOTHING to do with the police officers involved in the case, nor even of the custody officer.

 

[Azrael]

Errr...you've completely missed my point. You said something about pointlessley warehousing people - I pointed out that in fact was not my opinion.

Yes, and I never claimed you did support "warehousing", so enough about that.

Yes, I posted a definition earlier. You on the other hand are using it to mean retribution, which is not what it means.

You've confusing two different things. I said, separately, that justice should impose retribution: and an additional benefit of retribution was that, through suffering, prisoners could atone for their misdeeds.

You haven't been able to adequately explain the process by which suffering provides reparation.

Or more to the point you haven't adequately understood it.

You also have a very simplistic view of "choice". Not everyone has the same choices, not everyone is as able as everyone else to make choices. Choice is limited by material and emotional/psychological circumstances.

Moral rules must be simple. You think the mugger and the thief will appreciate this supposed gradient of responsibility? For that matter, will the criminologist?

The disadvantaged might not have a good choice, but they still have a choice. To deny them the capacity of choice is patronising and does them no favours. The majority of disadvantaged people do not commit crimes. While you can choose between right and wrong you have a positive duty to choose right.

The moment criminals latch-on to the idea they are not responsible for their actions they exploit it for all it is worth. The moment the law agrees with them none of us is safe.

What a shit view of humans you have.

What a scientific view I have. What a naive one you possess. Humans evolved as predators and now dominate all other predators. In nature life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. People are not naturally "good" or "evil": they are naturally weak and strong. Some strong people restrain themselves through good conscience: a great many do not and must be restrained by a strength greater still.

The absurd Rousseau-ian suggestion that people are naturally good and made bad by society will lead to disaster as those essential restraints are cast aside in the futile hope of releasing an innate goodness that just does not exist. Savages are not noble.

 

[Blagsta]

The police have no say in it.

I am not making it up. Read the PACE Codes of Practice. Speak to a criminal lawyer. Speak to a Lay Advisor.

If someone is in police detention and is ill and / or asks for a doctor a doctor is called. The doctor decides what is and is not appropriate (and it is usually NOT methadone unless the person is already on a methadone prescription (for the simple reason that it would be entirely inappropriate to prescribe it for a period of detention of a couple of days without any way of continuing it)), but that is an entirely medical decision. Whatever medication is prescribed is recorded in the custody record. Every interview requires a doctor to certify suitability first. Every tape starts with a verbal confirmation of the interviewee being OK and they, or their brief can (and do) bring up any concerns.

You could criticise the medical regime for people in police detention but it is NOTHING to do with the police officers involved in the case, nor even of the custody officer.

You're very naive. That may be what is supposed to happen, but it usually doesn't.

 

[Jonti]

What a scientific view I have. What a naive one you possess. Humans evolved as predators and now dominate all other predators. In nature life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. People are not naturally "good" or "evil": they are naturally weak and strong. Some strong people restrain themselves through good conscience: a great many do not and must be restrained by a strength greater still.

Our evolutionary history certainly includes predation, and likely turf wars between rival troops. But humans are not solitary creatures, and probably never have been, at any time in human evolution, not even the males. We're deeply social, and one very effective sanction against delinquency is group exclusion*. To be quarantined can indeed be a punishment.

But of course, for exclusion to work, one has to have felt part of the group in the first place. Divided societies, I suspect, need to be more punitive in their penology.

* it's what the Ignore button is for!

 

[Blagsta]

Yes, and I never claimed you did support "warehousing", so enough about that.

You certainly implied it.

You've confusing two different things. I said, separately, that justice should impose retribution: and an additional benefit of retribution was that, through suffering, prisoners could atone for their misdeeds.

Or more to the point you haven't adequately understood it.

If I haven't understood you it's because you haven't explained yourself very well.

Moral rules must be simple.

Why? Morality is not simple.

You think the mugger and the thief will appreciate this supposed gradient of responsibility? For that matter, will the criminologist?

Yes. I work in substance misuse, a field which is basically about choice. However to merely tell someone that they have a choice whether they take drugs or not isn't going to achieve anything. People with substance dependency ultimately have a choice whether they want to quit using ot not. However this does not mean that choice is an easy or simple thing. People usually don't see they have a choice, they usually see their life as being outside of their control. They see their circumstances as being outside of their control (often they're right in a lot of ways - living in a hostel where there are dealers outside, people using inside, bullying and intimidation and violence or living on the streets isn't much of a choice sometimes). They feel that their choices are limited as to stopping taking drugs because being off their head stops them feeling the full horror of the situation. Many people with substance misuse problems also have mental health problems or emotional problems, often stemming from abuse and mistreatment as a child. Many have personality disorders (these can sometimes be traced back to childhood stuff too). Merely telling them they have a choice and leaving it at that isn't going to work. The fact is that the concept of "choice" is a very complex one, requiring a supportive environment, encouragement, motivational work etc. Its not as simple as you seem to think it is. However do the work, put the time in and people come round to seeing that they do sometimes have a choice and can take personal responsbility. People are complex, with complex motivations, some conscious, some unconscious. A good criminologist will understand this. Put the work in and anyone can understand this.

The disadvantaged might not have a good choice, but they still have a choice. To deny them the capacity of choice is patronising and does them no favours. The majority of disadvantaged people do not commit crimes. While you can choose between right and wrong you have a positive duty to choose right.

See above.

Case study from work - a 40 year old male, diagnoses of schizophrenia, possible personality disorder. Brought up in care. On and off heroin since he was 13. In and out of prison, on and off the streets. Often unable to look after himself. Often feels more comfortable in prison. What good will hard labour do this man?

The moment criminals latch-on to the idea they are not responsible for their actions they exploit it for all it is worth. The moment the law agrees with them none of us is safe.

Where have I said people aren't responsible for their actions? Stop putting words in my mouth. What I have said is that choice and personal responsibility are not the simple things you think they are.
BTW - what is your experience of the criminal justice system and offenders?

What a scientific view I have. What a naive one you possess. Humans evolved as predators and now dominate all other predators. In nature life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. People are not naturally "good" or "evil": they are naturally weak and strong. Some strong people restrain themselves through good conscience: a great many do not and must be restrained by a strength greater still.

Aha. A typical Hobbesian view. Makes me wonder how the human race ever managed to survive this long. Yes, people are a mixture of all sorts of things. However I do not believe in "might is right" as you do. I believe that conscience and the ability to empathise with others is a quality that can be nurtured in people, but can also be destroyed by brutalising them. You appear to want to brutalise and rule people by fear. IME, all this does is to destroy empathy and conscience.

The absurd Rousseau-ian suggestion that people are naturally good and made bad by society will lead to disaster as those essential restraints are cast aside in the futile hope of releasing an innate goodness that just does not exist. Savages are not noble.

Oooh, a straw man. How novel.

 

[Azrael]

Our evolutionary history certainly includes predation, and likely turf wars between rival troops. But humans are not solitary creatures, and probably never have been, at any time in human evolution, not even the males. We're deeply social ...

Indeed we are; it was a Thomas Hobbes quote. The "nasty, brutish and short" parts are true enough.

... and one very effective sanction against delinquency is group exclusion*. To be quarantined can indeed be a punishment.

Thing is, under current prison regimes, criminals aren't quarantined: they just socialise with their fellow convicts. Even when they're locked in cells they're usually doubled-up (at least) due to chronic overcrowding.

More prisons need to be built, and a "silent regime" restored. The prospect of several years spent in absolute silence (barring education and the bark of the guards), and masked when amongst fellow convicts, will surely intimidate the most hardened recidivist. A "separate regime" would rob the most "criminal aristocracy" of all their power over lesser felons.

But of course, for exclusion to work, one has to have felt part of the group in the first place. Divided societies, I suspect, need to be more punitive in their penology.

Criminals are very often part of a group; it's just that the group is itself a violent sub-culture.

 

[Blagsta]

Indeed we are; it was a Thomas Hobbes quote. The "nasty, brutish and short" parts are true enough.

No, that's anal sex.
(c) Julie Burchill

Thing is, under current prison regimes, criminals aren't quarantined: they just socialise with their fellow convicts. Even when they're locked in cells they're usually doubled-up (at least) due to chronic overcrowding.

Removing people from their friends and family isn't social exclusion? Come again?

More prisons need to be built, and a "silent regime" restored. The prospect of several years spent in absolute silence (barring education and the bark of the guards), and masked when amongst fellow convicts, will surely intimidate the most hardened recidivist. A "separate regime" would rob the most "criminal aristocracy" of all their power over lesser felons.

Criminals are very often part of a group; it's just that the group is itself a violent sub-culture.

What an odd statement. On what do you base this?

 

[Azrael]

You certainly implied it.

Well it was not my intention, so moving on ...

Morality is not simple.

Of course it isn't; that is why the rules must be. The potential minefield of ethics demands we lay out a certain, clear path for people to negotiate.

Yes. I work in substance misuse, a field which is basically about choice. … They see their circumstances as being outside of their control …

I have no doubt they do. So a doctrine that tells them to blame their circumstances can only exacerbate that mindset.

The fact is that the concept of "choice" is a very complex one, requiring a supportive environment, encouragement, motivational work etc. Its not as simple as you seem to think it is.

I don't think it is simple: I think that unless the law has a clear dividing line anarchy will ensue. Hard, but anything but simple.

As it happens I oppose drug prohibition for some of the reasons you mention: it's a medical condition and incarcerating people for self-harm is logically absurd and medically disastrous. I would only support my "hard board, hard fare, hard labour" regime when victimless crimes are off the statue book and addicts given regulated supplies (or, if they want it, rehabilitation).

But if they assault other people I want them punished.

However do the work, put the time in and people come round to seeing that they do sometimes have a choice and can take personal responsbility. People are complex, with complex motivations, some conscious, some unconscious. A good criminologist will understand this. Put the work in and anyone can understand this.

Rather patronising this: disagreement doesn't imply lack of understanding.

Case study from work - a 40 year old male, diagnoses of schizophrenia, possible personality disorder. Brought up in care. On and off heroin since he was 13. In and out of prison, on and off the streets. Often unable to look after himself. Often feels more comfortable in prison. What good will hard labour do this man?

Very little I imagine. Its purpose is suffering. If, however, it was accompanied with treatment, education and, if strictly justified by a doctor, psychiatric treatment, the combination could do a lot of good. (This presumes he's in for assault, and not possession.)

Where have I said people aren't responsible for their actions? Stop putting words in my mouth. What I have said is that choice and personal responsibility are not the simple things you think they are.

I don't think they're simple.

To what extent do you think people should be held accountable for their actions? How are courts supposed to separate conscious and unconscious instincts? How do you stop criminals exploiting this mindset to dodge personal-responsibility.

BTW - what is your experience of the criminal justice system and offenders?

Victim of assault, victim of other crimes, attended public gallery in court quite a few times, friends who have taken a self-destructive path, talked to quite a few ex-offenders (including junkies) and serving coppers.

Aha. A typical Hobbesian view. Makes me wonder how the human race ever managed to survive this long.

Through a web of control and restraint now being eroded.

Oooh, a straw man. How novel.

You don't believe people are inherently good? Then how much should they be controlled?

Yes, people are a mixture of all sorts of things. However I do not believe in "might is right" as you do. I believe that conscience and the ability to empathise with others is a quality that can be nurtured in people, but can also be destroyed by brutalising them. You appear to want to brutalise and rule people by fear. IME, all this does is to destroy empathy and conscience.

Now who's erecting straw men! This is anathema to my views. I don't believe "might is right", and neither did Hobbes. Hobbes believed in the power that protects, and so do I. Might is not right, and a just guardian, restrained by law, must be strong enough to counter it.

Liberty under the law rejects "might is right".

 

[Azrael]

No, that's anal sex.
(c) Julie Burchill

Miss Burchill of course defers only to her heroine in talking out of her arse.

Amusing to see a woman who supports Mags and chavs dragooned to the cause of seeking compassion for the disadvantaged.

Removing people from their friends and family isn't social exclusion? Come again?

Not complete social exclusion. Visits, however limited, are allowed, and many of those friends will be found inside on a regular basis. If the recidivist is unlucky enough to miss being gaoled with his associates then he's allowed to mix with new ones.

Devestating rebuttal!

What an odd statement. On what do you base this?

On the gangs of pikey scum infesting my area. On the known habit of criminals to club together with other felons.

 

[Blagsta]

Well it was not my intention, so moving on ...

Of course it isn't; that is why the rules must be. The potential minefield of ethics demands we lay out a certain, clear path for people to negotiate.

"We"? Who's "we"?

People aren't as stupid as you make out y'know

I have no doubt they do. So a doctrine that tells them to blame their circumstances can only exacerbate that mindset.

What doctrine? Not putting words in my mouth again are you?

I don't think it is simple: I think that unless the law has a clear dividing line anarchy will ensue. Hard, but anything but simple.

A clear dividing line between what and what?

As it happens I oppose drug prohibition for some of the reasons you mention: it's a medical condition

I don't agree its a medical condition. There is certainly a medical component, but I certainly don't agree with the medical model of drug dependency.

and incarcerating people for self-harm is logically absurd and medically disastrous.

I would only support my "hard board, hard fare, hard labour" regime when victimless crimes are off the statue book and addicts given regulated supplies (or, if they want it, rehabilitation).

I'm not sure what you mean by victimless crimes. Do you consider shoplifting to be victimless? Burglary?

But if they assault other people I want them punished.

Yes, punishment should be part of it. However I fail to see what this has to do with atonement (which is what you have been arguing hard labour will achieve)

Rather patronising this: disagreement doesn't imply lack of understanding.

Eh?

Very little I imagine. Its purpose is suffering. If, however, it was accompanied with treatment, education and, if strictly justified by a doctor, psychiatric treatment, the combination could do a lot of good. (This presumes he's in for assault, and not possession.)

Yes, you keep claiming that hard labour will do good, without explaining how or why.

I don't think they're simple.

Well you certainly give that impression. You give the impression that choice and personal responsibility are simple things that anyone can exercise in any circumstances.

To what extent do you think people should be held accountable for their actions? How are courts supposed to separate conscious and unconscious instincts? How do you stop criminals exploiting this mindset to dodge personal-responsibility.

You seem to be missing my point by rather a large margin. I was pointing out that not everyone knows that they actually have choices, not everyone knows how to exercise personal responsibilty. You make it out to be a black and white clear cut issue when it is anything but. However, yes, if someone commits assault they should be punished. Part of that punishment should be an exploration of the motives and consequences of that assault. I fail to see (and you can't explain!) how hard labour etc will help.

Victim of assault, victim of other crimes, attended public gallery in court quite a few times, friends who have taken a self-destructive path, talked to quite a few ex-offenders (including junkies) and serving coppers.

Through a web of control and restraint now being eroded.

You don't believe people are inherently good? Then how much should they be controlled?

I don't honestly know how to respond to this. You and I are coming from positions so far apart. No, I don't think people are inherently good or inherently bad. Good and bad are to a large extent social constructs that change over history and situation. What I do think people are capable of is having a conscience and of empathy. These things do not "naturally" develop however, they are dependent on upbringing. I also think that people are capable of brutality and horror, dependent on circumstance. These things are partly determined by external social factors and partly by internal factors, such as how secure someone feels in the world etc.

Now who's erecting straw men! This is anathema to my views. I don't believe "might is right", and neither did Hobbes. Hobbes believed in the power that protects, and so do I. Might is not right, and a just guardian, restrained by law, must be strong enough to counter it.

"Might is right" is the logical outcome of this view though. Who gets to determine who is in power and who gets protected? Yes, the people who fight hardest to gain that power.

Liberty under the law rejects "might is right".

Yes, liberty for who, determined by law made by people in power for whose benefit?

 

[Blagsta]

Miss Burchill of course defers only to her heroine in talking out of her arse.

Amusing to see a woman who supports Mags and chavs dragooned to the cause of seeking compassion for the disadvantaged.

It was an attempt to inject some humour into the debate. I guess it failed.

Not complete social exclusion. Visits, however limited, are allowed, and many of those friends will be found inside on a regular basis.

What a ridiculous assumption.

If the recidivist is unlucky enough to miss being gaoled with his associates then he's allowed to mix with new ones.

I can't even work out what this statement means.

Devestating rebuttal!

It's all it was worth tbh. Masks and silence, how daft.

On the gangs of pikey scum infesting my area.

Ahhhh, racism and bigotry. How nice.

On the known habit of criminals to club together with other felons.

You appear to think that (a) all "criminals" are exactly the same, (b) they all belong to some club and (c) they are not actually drawn from the same communities as the rest of us. Its quite bizzarre tbh.

 

[Azrael]

"We"? Who's "we"?

People aren't as stupid as you make out y'know

Oh I don't think criminals are stupid; exploitation of the "victim of circumstance" dogma is subtle and very cunning. Unless they have clear limits imposed they'll run rings around the law, and the population is growing increasingly angry as they see the law making excuses for criminals.

What doctrine? Not putting words in my mouth again are you?

I've yet to start. You said certain circumstances undermine a criminal's personal responsibility.

A clear dividing line between what and what?

What is allowed and what is prohibited.

I don't agree its a medical condition. There is certainly a medical component, but I certainly don't agree with the medical model of drug dependency.

Oh Jesus, I wasn't getting into that sociological social v. medical model debate, and have no intention of starting. I was simply referring to the "medical component", as you call it.

I'm not sure what you mean by victimless crimes. Do you consider shoplifting to be victimless? Burglary?

Neither are victimless; and burglary, in violating someone's most private sanctuary, is an appalling crime that demands harsh punishment. I don't believe addicts are justified in doing either despite the wrongness of prohibition, but I don't want the full force of the law deployed until they can't adduce habit-funding (for pragmatic reasons if nothing else).

Yes, punishment should be part of it. However I fail to see what this has to do with atonement (which is what you have been arguing hard labour will achieve)

I've already explained atonement through suffering. Since you're having problems with it lets just stick to retribution.

Eh? [at the loss of the web of control and restraint]

The end of beat policing, the erosion of moral certainty, the loss of conductors, wardens, and other visible signs of authority.

Yes, you keep claiming that hard labour will do good, without explaining how or why.

I've already given several pragmatic reasons to justify hard labour.

Well you certainly give that impression. You give the impression that choice and personal responsibility are simple things that anyone can exercise in any circumstances.

If someone is not in their right mind they lack mens rea and should be found not guilty. If they have the ability to make a choice, and choose not to, they must be punished or good order will collapse (and indeed, has collapsed).

You seem to be missing my point by rather a large margin. I was pointing out that not everyone knows that they actually have choices, not everyone knows how to exercise personal responsibilty.

Ignorance has never been a defence. If they don't "know how to exercise" personal responsibility then a spell inside is as good a way as any of teaching them.

You make it out to be a black and white clear cut issue when it is anything but. However, yes, if someone commits assault they should be punished. Part of that punishment should be an exploration of the motives and consequences of that assault. I fail to see (and you can't explain!) how hard labour etc will help.

Never said "hard labour" would help this supposed "exploration". Education and, if strictly necessary, psychiatric treatment might, but I'm exceedingly wary that a sound motive (making criminals face up to their wickedness and the consequences of their wrongdoing) can tip over into self-serving excuses and sociological epistles.

It should not be an "exploration" but a ruthless revelation, backed up with the certain knowledge that the law is going to get progressively harsher if ever the misdeed is repeated.

I don't honestly know how to respond to this. You and I are coming from positions so far apart. No, I don't think people are inherently good or inherently bad. Good and bad are to a large extent social constructs that change over history and situation. What I do think people are capable of is having a conscience and of empathy. These things do not "naturally" develop however, they are dependent on upbringing. I also think that people are capable of brutality and horror, dependent on circumstance. These things are partly determined by external social factors and partly by internal factors, such as how secure someone feels in the world etc.

Fine, so how should the law control people? Should it rely on them exercising their better nature, or deploy a web of authority waiting to close on any wrongdoing?

"Might is right" is the logical outcome of this view though.

No it isn't. Might will always rule. That isn't a question of logic, it is a question of indisputable fact. I want to make that might right. That is entirely different from claiming strength is self-justifying.

Who gets to determine who is in power and who gets protected? Yes, the people who fight hardest to gain that power.

In an ordered society of checks and balances the people who "fight hardest to get that power" must respect certain limits and get a mandate from the people. If representative government is working properly than that mandate won't be based on naked strength, and the government won't have a monopoly on power, because that monopoly is shared by all law-abiding subjects.

Since the strongest inevitably rules, how do you propose making that strength just?

Yes, liberty for who, determined by law made by people in power for whose benefit?

Liberty for anyone who does not disturb the peace and security of anyone else, determined, so far as possible, by representative means.

 

[Azrael]

It was an attempt to inject some humour into the debate. I guess it failed.

Excuse me, whenever Miss Burchill is mentioned she tends to incite feelings of a homicidal nature.

What a ridiculous assumption.

That criminals have criminal associates, or that those associates get caught? Come to think of it, the latter is pretty ridiculous isn't it.

I can't even work out what this statement means.

That prisoners make new criminal contacts on the inside. Hardly a matter of dispute among criminologists.

It's all it was worth tbh. Masks and silence, how daft.

Masks stop convicts recognising each other, and silence stops them sharing their ugly trade. (And, indeed, protects the weak convicts from the strong.) It will break the will of "professional criminals" just as effectively as it would the young, foolish men who would otherwise fall under their influence.

Ahhhh, racism and bigotry. How nice.

Withdraw that libel at once. Round here "pikey" refers to criminal youths dressed in three-stripes and trainers (regardless of race). It's a synonym for chav. Any previous associations are long lost.

And I'm "bigoted" for despising anti-social, thuggish youth?

You appear to think that (a) all "criminals" are exactly the same, (b) they all belong to some club and (c) they are not actually drawn from the same communities as the rest of us. Its quite bizzarre tbh.

I clearly don't think they're all the same or I wouldn't have argued for more help for addicts than hardened offenders. Thinking they tend to have criminal associates is hardly the same as thinking they're in the same club. And I'm well aware which communities they're drawn from, I've seen people go that way and I wish a strong, wise law was there to save them from themselves.

So, who would you class as a criminal deserving of harsh punishment, and do you think current legal laxity (coupled with the decline of conscience) plays no part in letting men descend into a life of crime?

 

[Blagsta]

Oh I don't think criminals are stupid; exploitation of the "victim of circumstance" dogma is subtle and very cunning. Unless they have clear limits imposed they'll run rings around the law, and the population is growing increasingly angry as they see the law making excuses for criminals.

I've yet to start. You said certain circumstances undermine a criminal's personal responsibility.

No, that's not quite what I've said.

What is allowed and what is prohibited.

Allowed and prohibited by whom? In what circumstances? How does power, money and social status impact on this?

Oh Jesus, I wasn't getting into that sociological social v. medical model debate, and have no intention of starting. I was simply referring to the "medical component", as you call it.

It's all relevant. Given that a large proportion of people in prison have drug problems and/or mental health problems, I think an exploration of what these things are is very relevant.

Neither are victimless; and burglary, in violating someone's most private sanctuary, is an appalling crime that demands harsh punishment.

Thank you, I was just clarifying.

I don't believe addicts are justified in doing either despite the wrongness of prohibition, but I don't want the full force of the law deployed until they can't adduce habit-funding (for pragmatic reasons if nothing else).

Fairynuff.

I've already explained atonement through suffering.

No you haven't. All you've done is state it is so without any explanation (apart from a vague and confused bit about "moral debt".)

Since you're having problems with it lets just stick to retribution.

But its not the same thing. Are you now arguing for retribution instead? At least you're being a bit more honest now.

The end of beat policing, the erosion of moral certainty, the loss of conductors, wardens, and other visible signs of authority.

Yes, yes, very good. Who gets to define what these moral certainties are? Who gets to define authrority? Authority in whose interests?

I've already given several pragmatic reasons to justify hard labour.

No you haven't. You've just stated that it would be a good thing - you've yet to state why (apart from retribution).

If someone is not in their right mind they lack mens rea and should be found not guilty. If they have the ability to make a choice, and choose not to, they must be punished or good order will collapse (and indeed, has collapsed).

Blimey, you have a very black and white view of the world! I've already gone into how choice is not a black and white issue. The real world has lots of shades of grey. Admitting that will not cause your world to fall apart.

Ignorance has never been a defence. If they don't "know how to exercise" personal responsibility then a spell inside is as good a way as any of teaching them.

*bangs head*

Look - some people have had abusive upbringings. Some people have been beaten or otherwise abused by people who were supposed to care for them. I'd hazard that a good 95% of people I come across in my line of work have had some emotional or other abuse in their childhood. This tends to impact on people's ability to make choices and take responsibility. Merely chucking people in prison does nothing to address this.

Never said "hard labour" would help this supposed "exploration".

What will it help?

Education and, if strictly necessary, psychiatric treatment might, but I'm exceedingly wary that a sound motive (making criminals face up to their wickedness and the consequences of their wrongdoing) can tip over into self-serving excuses and sociological epistles.

"wickedness"? Oh dear. There's a strong theme of Christianity coming across from you.

I'm also unclear what "self-serving excuses and sociological epistles" actually means.

It should not be an "exploration" but a ruthless revelation, backed up with the certain knowledge that the law is going to get progressively harsher if ever the misdeed is repeated.

Errrrr...what the fuck!?!?! Ruthless revelation? Errr...?!?

Fine, so how should the law control people? Should it rely on them exercising their better nature, or deploy a web of authority waiting to close on any wrongdoing?

I think people are mostly capable of controlling themselves tbh.

No it isn't. Might will always rule. That isn't a question of logic, it is a question of indisputable fact. I want to make that might right. That is entirely different from claiming strength is self-justifying.

So you do agree that "might is right". The most ruthless person will gain power.

In an ordered society of checks and balances the people who "fight hardest to get that power" must respect certain limits and get a mandate from the people. If representative government is working properly than that mandate won't be based on naked strength, and the government won't have a monopoly on power, because that monopoly is shared by all law-abiding subjects.

You seem to have an obsession with order. I find it rather weird tbh. I'm wondering why you think that people in power will respect certain limits? The real world seems rather different.

Since the strongest inevitably rules, how do you propose making that strength just?

I'm not keen on the entire concept of ruling and power. You seem to have a rather pathological need for it.

Liberty for anyone who does not disturb the peace and security of anyone else, determined, so far as possible, by representative means.

Yes, yes. What does it mean? Who determines what constitutes this liberty? Does it have limits? Who defines them? Who determines what peace and security means? Yep - the people in power. History shows us that people in power are only interested in looking after their own.