Suggested Mayday? Nearly 100K in prison.

[untethered]

In what capacity in which prisons?

None of your business.

 

[Blagsta]

None of your business.

In other words you're making it up.

 

[The Black Hand]

What released prisoners "think" after their sentences isn't really the point. It would be good if many of them think that their punishment was deserved, that it was unpleasant and that more unpleasant punishment will follow if they do it again, but really, it's not the aim of prison to specifically change anyone's attitude.

I don't believe the whole world would end up blind, as you put it. There is a difference between inflicting a proportionate punishment on someone that has been convicted of a crime, and a criminal taking "revenge" for that sentence. One is just; the other is criminal. Could you identify and explain the crucial concept that makes the difference?

Quite how any of this is hypocrisy I have no idea. The notion of just punishment for infractions of the law is a common feature of most moral and legal systems.

Bollocks - punishment/revenge its the same thing. AS George Orwell said, the rich and the poor are equal to sleep under the bridges, and Adam Smith said an army of police are necessary to protect those with property. Those with 'big' property make the laws and take revenge on those who break them - 95% are inside for property offences (money etc). The law is always and everywhere the law of the powerful as Herbert Marcuse said; there are no morals or fairness in those systems.

 

[cemertyone]

Do you think convicted mass-murderers and terrorists should be free? If not, they clearly "work" for some people. Just scale it down from there.

I've got to be frank, you and I could argue this forever and never agree. One thing we probably do agree on is that prisons are very bad at "reforming" their inmates. However, I don't see this as a criterion for their "success" because I don't see it as one of their purposes (or the purpose of having a criminal justice system at all).
/QUOTE]

If you don`t think that prisons are meant to reform inmates then you have not a single iota of what you talk about. You clearly know nothing about the history or intent behind the setting up of prison system in the first place and i seriously doubt if you have ever even been in a prison in your fucking life...
If so in what capacity????? what types of prisoners have you dealt with? . Was it in a professional or voluntray manner??
if you gonna come out with the usual Daily Mail tripe about prisons and prisoners then put up or shut up.
For me i actually work for a small charity ( Camden based) called " Irish prisoners abroad" and i cant see any resemembilence in the prisons i visit to the ones you allege you do.......

 

[Random]

Funnily enough, I've spent a considerable amount of time inside prisons - not as a prisoner, I hasten to add

Is that you, padre?

 

[cemertyone]

Is that you, padre?

ah i know..what i find funny is that the very same people who scream about and for more prison places....when i have taken them there are the very first to tell me afterwards that prison don`t work......its a kinda road to damascus thing......

 

[The Black Hand]

So how many people think we should launch a Mayday Monopoly against the Criminal justice system when 100K prisoners is reached?

 

[cemertyone]

So how many people think we should launch a Mayday Monopoly against the Criminal justice system when 100K prisoners is reached?

I notice that our man has not had the good grace to respond to my questions.... that`s fine...
But where he is coming from is right to a point...
But where he falls down is in the sheer economics of it all..He doe`s not ( or will not ) see the inconsistency in keeping a woman in Holloway prison for the non-payment of a particular fine ( say T.V. licence or some such event) and then for to her to be jailed and her kids taken into care) and the subsequent cost in £`s to the entire population...its fucking madness...

 

[untethered]

I notice that our man has not had the good grace to respond to my questions.... that`s fine...
But where he is coming from is right to a point...
But where he falls down is in the sheer economics of it all..He doe`s not ( or will not ) see the inconsistency in keeping a woman in Holloway prison for the non-payment of a particular fine ( say T.V. licence or some such event) and then for to her to be jailed and her kids taken into care) and the subsequent cost in £`s to the entire population...its fucking madness...

You're right that it is the intention of many people that prisons should reform their prisoners. The point I was making - which people here seem to agree with - is that they don't. You and others believe that the reformation of individuals should be an aim (if not the aim) of a criminal justice system. I disagree. I believe the aim should be punishment. Reformation at the hands of the state presupposes all manner of things that I wouldn't agree with. If you think prison should be about reformation, it doesn't work. If you think reformation is the primary aim, I can understand why you want to reduce or replace imprisonment.

On the point of economics, you're a mile off. Many things that are desirable are highly uneconomical, both for individuals and the state. One of the great failings of our society is to subject every proposal and action to economic analysis, as if to be "economical" were the highest virtue. Many liberal and left-wing people would agree with this; for example, many environmental and social problems as perceived from those perspectives are caused by trying to evaluate everything in economic rather than humanistic or ecocentric terms.

To argue for economic primacy in punishment would be to argue for the death penalty for major crimes and corporal punishment for lesser ones. Great value for money, if that's what matters to you.

 

[JHE]

...this hugely symbolic figure...

What does it symbolise (hugely)?

 

[agricola]

Prisons are spectacularly bad places at reforming inmates, as the last hundred years (in fact, probably more) of Criminal Justice policy has (inadvertently, given that much of that time has been spent trying to prove they can) shown. Reform is something that can only be done by the individual making a choice not to commit crime.

Where prisons do work is that, once Billy Burglar has been locked away, he isnt able to commit any more crimes against the community he has been victimizing.

As for "the inconsistency in keeping a woman in Holloway prison for the non-payment of a particular fine" - you have to go some distance and put in some considerable effort in not paying a fine before they put you away.

Those with 'big' property make the laws and take revenge on those who break them - 95% are inside for property offences (money etc). The law is always and everywhere the law of the powerful as Herbert Marcuse said; there are no morals or fairness in those systems.

If the prisons were full of Robin Hoods, banged up for stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, then you might have a point. Sadly, though, most of them will be inside for taking from their own communities, so you dont.

 

[untethered]

Prisons are spectacularly bad places at reforming inmates, as the last hundred years (in fact, probably more) of Criminal Justice policy has (inadvertently, given that much of that time has been spent trying to prove they can) shown. Reform is something that can only be done by the individual making a choice not to commit crime.

Precisely my point. Therefore, the only honest justifications for prison from the perspective of the individual prisoner is to punish them and prevent them from committing further offences while they're detained.

The moral decision to stop offending (for that vast majority of offenders that realise what they're doing is both illegal and wrong) cannot be instilled by a prison nor suppressed by it. It's as likely to happen in prison as out of it. The state cannot reform anyone - they have to do it for themselves. It's an act of will, nothing else.

 

[Blagsta]

Reform is something that can only be done by the individual making a choice not to commit crime.

Hmmmm...helping someone to see that they do have choices is part of the reform process. Education, opportunities, emotional help/counselling etc are all part of it. Given that large numbers of prisoners have literacy problems, mental health problems (including personality disorders) and drug problems, to say that reform is all about individual choice seems to rather miss the point.

 

[JHE]

If the prisons were full of Robin Hoods, banged up for stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, then you might have a point. Sadly, though, most of them will be inside for taking from their own communities, so you dont.

Yup. Robbin' hoods are not Robin Hoods, but 'their own communities' doesn't touch on the worst of it - crimes committed by strong young men against people weaker and more vulnerable.

 

[agricola]

Hmmmm...helping someone to see that they do have choices is part of the reform process. Education, opportunities, emotional help/counselling etc are all part of it. Given that large numbers of prisoners have literacy problems, mental health problems (including personality disorders) and drug problems, to say that reform is all about individual choice seems to rather miss the point.

Hardly.

One fears to go on about personal responsibility because the Tories hijacked it for so long, but it should be drummed into kids because at least two of the problems you have identified stem from personal responsibility as well - low literacy is sometimes the result of problems like dyslexia, but rather more often is the result of kids messing around when they should be learning, and getting left behind as a result; and drug dependency is almost always the result of a person choosing to smoke / inject / take whatever. After all, for every prisoner there are tens if not hundreds of people who have had similar, or worse, experiences and who havent gone on to rob, burgle or cheat people.

Please note that I am not advocating that counselling and help schemes for prisoners should be stopped, but we should not be conned into thinking they are the reason why criminals are sent to prison.

 

[Blagsta]

Hardly.

One fears to go on about personal responsibility because the Tories hijacked it for so long, but it should be drummed into kids because at least two of the problems you have identified stem from personal responsibility as well - low literacy is sometimes the result of problems like dyslexia, but rather more often is the result of kids messing around when they should be learning, and getting left behind as a result;

Yes, sometimes. But they're kids ffs. Surely you're not going to hold kids to the same degree of personal responsibility as adults? There are also lots of other factors at play here. From lack of parental care to crap schools, bad teachers, bullying, emotional problems etc. To lay all the blame at the feet of "kids messing around" rather reinforces the my point about the daftness of talking about "personal responsibility" without taking into account other factors.

and drug dependency is almost always the result of a person choosing to smoke / inject / take whatever. After all, for every prisoner there are tens if not hundreds of people who have had similar, or worse, experiences and who havent gone on to rob, burgle or cheat people.

There you go again, going on about "personal responsibility" without factoring in individual circumstances, mental health, emotional problems, childhood abuse, lack of educational opportunities etc.

Please note that I am not advocating that counselling and help schemes for prisoners should be stopped, but we should not be conned into thinking they are the reason why criminals are sent to prison.

I don't understand this bit.

 

[Blagsta]

Some facts

The statistics on prevalence provided by the Office of National Statistics study of psychiatric morbidity amongst prisoners indicate that approximately 90% of prisoners have either a psychosis, a neurosis, a personality disorder, or a substance misuse problem.

Brooker et al (2002) conducted a systemic review of literature on mental health and prisoners and considered the ONS study and other prevalence studies and proposed the following prevalence ranges:

* Personality disorder – ranges from 50% (in sentenced and remand female prisoners, to 78% (in male remand prisoners).
* Neurotic disorder – ranges from 40% (in male sentenced prisoners) to 76% (in female prisoners)
* Drug dependency – ranges from 34% (in male sentenced prisoners) to 52% ( in female remand prisoners)
* Alcohol dependency – ranges from 19% (in females sentenced prisoners) to 30% (in both sentenced and remand male prisoners)
* Schizophrenia or delusional disorder – ranges from 6% (in males sentenced prisoners) to 13% (in female remand and sentenced prisoners)
* Affective psychosis – 1% - 2% of prisoners

Rates of self harm and attempted suicide were high:

* Attempted suicide over a 12 month period ranged between 7% (in male sentenced prisoners) and 27% (in female remand prisoners);
* Self-harm during the current spell in prison ranged between 5% (in male remand prisoners) and 10% (in female sentenced prisoners).

Farrell et al (2002) report that the incidence of psychosis in their study was 20 times that of its incidence in the general population. They also found a strong association between severe dependence on cannabis and psycho-stimulants and psychosis.

http://www.scmh.org.uk/80256FBD004F6342/vWeb/wpKHAL6HWF85

* 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

* 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.

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

 

[jayeola]

51/49 of prisoners don't offend again, those are the figures i've got

But I keep hearing that 70% of them go back /* confused */

 

[agricola]

Yes, sometimes. But they're kids ffs. Surely you're not going to hold kids to the same degree of personal responsibility as adults? There are also lots of other factors at play here. From lack of parental care to crap schools, bad teachers, bullying, emotional problems etc. To lay all the blame at the feet of "kids messing around" rather reinforces the my point about the daftness of talking about "personal responsibility" without taking into account other factors.

But we already expect kids to have that degree of responsibility, given that they can by their actions already screw their lives up fairly permanently (academically / criminally / biologically). IMHO we should recognize this, and educate them accordingly, instead of - as you appear to be doing - pretend that they cannot destroy themselves.

I would recognize that "bad parenting" can have some part to play, though I know of several yoot who have what appear to be good, caring parents and yet have ended up being little gobshites. As for bullying, in my experience it is usually the bullies who have problems with the legal system, rather than the bullied. As for bad teachers making someone commit crime, I think that is suggesting that they have rather more influence than they in fact have.

There you go again, going on about "personal responsibility" without factoring in individual circumstances, mental health, emotional problems, childhood abuse, lack of educational opportunities etc.

Which is a problem for the individual, with societies help - it should not excuse those who use it as a reason or justification for committing crime against other, almost always completely unrelated to the issue, people. If you were bullied as a child, why should I feel sorry for you when you beat me up for my IPod?

 

[agricola]

Some facts

http://www.scmh.org.uk/80256FBD004F6342/vWeb/wpKHAL6HWF85
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/stats/keystats3.html

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

Which seems to show that most of the problems stem from childhood and lack of education.

 

[Blagsta]

But we already expect kids to have that degree of responsibility, given that they can by their actions already screw their lives up fairly permanently (academically / criminally / biologically).

Tbh, academic screw ups can be easily sorted later in life with the right opportunities. However I do find it rather distasteful that you seem so keen to hold children to the same standards as adults. People make mistakes - young people make more - it's part of being human.

IMHO we should recognize this, and educate them accordingly,

Yes, we should. The emphasis should be on a more collective social repsonsibility.

instead of - as you appear to be doing - pretend that they cannot destroy themselves.

Eh? Where did I do that?

I would recognize that "bad parenting" can have some part to play, though I know of several yoot who have what appear to be good, caring parents and yet have ended up being little gobshites.

Appearances can be deceptive. However, even caring parents can screw their kids up unwittingly. A family where the parents have difficulties showing affection or emotion due to their parenting can have quite an effect on someone's emotional development. However, parents are not the only influence - but there are quite a few studies that show that the first few years of a child's life are very important on their subsequent emotional development.

As for bullying, in my experience it is usually the bullies who have problems with the legal system, rather than the bullied.

IME, school bullies are often acting out and get bullied at home. Things ain't black and white.

As for bad teachers making someone commit crime, I think that is suggesting that they have rather more influence than they in fact have.

Who said that teachers make someone commit crime?

Which is a problem for the individual, with societies help - it should not excuse those who use it as a reason or justification for committing crime against other, almost always completely unrelated to the issue, people.

Who said anything about excuses? Please try and reply to what I actually wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

If you were bullied as a child, why should I feel sorry for you when you beat me up for my IPod?

What on earth are you on about?

 

[Blagsta]

Which seems to show that most of the problems stem from childhood and lack of education.

Yes, which is what I'm getting at.

I'm not sure where you're coming from tbh.

 

[agricola]

Tbh, academic screw ups can be easily sorted later in life with the right opportunities. However I do find it rather distasteful that you seem so keen to hold children to the same standards as adults. People make mistakes - young people make more - it's part of being human.

I think the point is (and this is reinforced by the evidence you showed) that you cannot easily sort these problems later in life - by that stage most of these people have been left behind with no prospects and no job.

I do not want to treat children the same as adults, though I do think we should stop pretending that "kids will make mistakes" when talking about criminal behaviour - a little severity in the Youth Justice phase could well result in improved behaviour later on.

Eh? Where did I do that?

Where you provide excuses for unacceptable behaviour. While its terrible that some children might have bad parents, or some other factor, it should not and can never excuse that child (or as an adult later on) victimizing someone else.

IME, school bullies are often acting out and get bullied at home. Things ain't black and white.

Again, so what?

Who said that teachers make someone commit crime?

You did:

There are also lots of other factors at play here. From lack of parental care to crap schools, bad teachers, bullying, emotional problems etc.

Who said anything about excuses? Please try and reply to what I actually wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

But what you are doing is offering excuses for the bad behaviour of individuals



What on earth are you on about? [/QUOTE]

 

[Blagsta]

I think the point is (and this is reinforced by the evidence you showed) that you cannot easily sort these problems later in life - by that stage most of these people have been left behind with no prospects and no job.

No, no, you entirely miss my point - these things can be sorted - with the right opportunities - which are sorely lacking at the moment.

I do not want to treat children the same as adults, though I do think we should stop pretending that "kids will make mistakes" when talking about criminal behaviour -

Errrmmm...I wasn't particularly. But the fact is that kids do make mistakes. I have, I'm sure you did. Most kids have shoplifted at some point for example.

a little severity in the Youth Justice phase could well result in improved behaviour later on.

For some kids, maybe - but then you have the danger of messing up the life of someone who has just made a silly mistake. More troubled kids who are acting out will not be influenced by harsh punishment.

Where you provide excuses for unacceptable behaviour.

Where have I done that? I think you may be getting confused between excusing and understanding.

While its terrible that some children might have bad parents, or some other factor, it should not and can never excuse that child (or as an adult later on) victimizing someone else.

Did I ever say it should be?

Again, so what?

Errr....

*speechless*

So what? Errr...

Em..

Errr....isn't it bleedin' obvious so what? If you can understand the reasons for bullying behaviour then you can do something about it? Good grief man, its not that difficult a concept is it?

You did:

I suggest you read it again then, in the context it was meant.

But what you are doing is offering excuses for the bad behaviour of individuals

No I'm not. I'm talking about understanding so we can address the underlying reasons and actually change things! Is that really so hard to get your head round?

What on earth are you on about?

[/QUOTE]


What you wrote was meaningless in the context of my argument. Try reading what I actually write for a change.

 

[agricola]

No, no, you entirely miss my point - these things can be sorted - with the right opportunities - which are sorely lacking at the moment.

You said "easily sort out", which appears to me to have changed somewhat, and one must not end up giving those people more oppurtunities than someone who is not committing crime, otherwise the system is perverse.

No I'm not. I'm talking about understanding so we can address the underlying reasons and actually change things! Is that really so hard to get your head round?

"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Look, with the majority of prisoners you are looking at people who have been given multiple chances and had multiple interventions in order to try and change things, and who have continued to commit crime. There have been a whole load of people who are paid to address the underlying reasons, who have tried to change things, offer chances to get out and who have failed, largely if not totally because the criminal concerned has made a decision not to listen.

IMHO one of the great failings of criminal justice policy in the past forty-odd years has been to try and treat causes and reasons instead of dealing effectively with the person(s) responsible.

For some kids, maybe - but then you have the danger of messing up the life of someone who has just made a silly mistake. More troubled kids who are acting out will not be influenced by harsh punishment.

Which is where I think you and I differ greatly. The Criminal Justice system and especially the Youth Justice System surely cannot approach a case from the point of view of it might ruin the life of the criminal if they are found guilty - the fault does and must lie with the person concerned.

Besides, unless you are talking serious crime (murders, robbery, burglary etc) almost all of the juvenile and youth defendants at Youth Court will already have been through Reprimands, Final Warnings and all manner of YOTS and Social Services interventions. By the time they reach Youth Court they should be all out of chances and the book should be thrown at them; if they choose not to listen then so be it, they can deal with the consequences.

Errr....isn't it bleedin' obvious so what? If you can understand the reasons for bullying behaviour then you can do something about it? Good grief man, its not that difficult a concept is it?

Well it seems to be, given that you havent grasped it. As above, the school or social services must approach issues of bullying from the point of view of the bullied child, otherwise the system is useless and self-defeating.

While the bully should of course be spoken to and asked why they have done it, that should not effect what happens at the end, where the bully must accept what he/she has done is wrong and be made aware of the consequences should it happen again.

What on earth are you on about?

[/quote]

Sorry, that was a typo.

 

[Blagsta]

You said "easily sort out", which appears to me to have changed somewhat, and one must not end up giving those people more oppurtunities than someone who is not committing crime, otherwise the system is perverse.

Of course there should be equal opportunities for all - but I think the facts speak for themselves. People in the criminal justice system have often been failed by educational institutions, failed by mental health services and social services. Prisoners are often victims too - not a popular view I know, but backed up by facts I think.

"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Look, with the majority of prisoners you are looking at people who have been given multiple chances and had multiple interventions in order to try and change things, and who have continued to commit crime.

Yes, which backs up my argument - the current system isn't working.

There have been a whole load of people who are paid to address the underlying reasons, who have tried to change things, offer chances to get out and who have failed, largely if not totally because the criminal concerned has made a decision not to listen.

I'd disagree actually. Most of the help offered is next to useless - probation for example don't give a toss. CARAT teams are underfunded and organised in such a way as to merely meet targets and not to actually do any proper work. Counselling and therapy services are underfunded and reliant mostly on volunteers. Mental health services are failing people. Locating the problem purely in the individual completely misses the point.

IMHO one of the great failings of criminal justice policy in the past forty-odd years has been to try and treat causes and reasons instead of dealing effectively with the person(s) responsible.

People do not exist in a vacuum.

Which is where I think you and I differ greatly. The Criminal Justice system and especially the Youth Justice System surely cannot approach a case from the point of view of it might ruin the life of the criminal if they are found guilty - the fault does and must lie with the person concerned.

I repeat - people do not exist in a vacuum. This applies even more so to children. Of course people must take personal responsibility - however sometimes people need help to do that.

Besides, unless you are talking serious crime (murders, robbery, burglary etc) almost all of the juvenile and youth defendants at Youth Court will already have been through Reprimands, Final Warnings and all manner of YOTS and Social Services interventions. By the time they reach Youth Court they should be all out of chances and the book should be thrown at them; if they choose not to listen then so be it, they can deal with the consequences.

Yes and I'd agree those things aren't working. The answer therefore is to change the philosophy. Purely behaviourist responses don't work - I'd like to see approaches based on actually wanting to sort things out, not just address behaviours - which are symptoms, not causes. EBD schools for example are badly run and underfunded. PRU's also. I'd like to see more schemes such as Kids Company and Place 2 Be.

Well it seems to be, given that you havent grasped it. As above, the school or social services must approach issues of bullying from the point of view of the bullied child, otherwise the system is useless and self-defeating.

Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't we look at both? I was badly bullied at school, yet as an adult I can see that the kids who bullied me were also the ones with the shitty homelife. Kids who become nasty bullies are usually acting out (unconsciously re-enacting emotional conflicts or bad experiences). Unless this is understood and addressed, the cycle continues.

While the bully should of course be spoken to and asked why they have done it, that should not effect what happens at the end, where the bully must accept what he/she has done is wrong and be made aware of the consequences should it happen again.

Yes, that's all well and good, as far as it goes. However it does nothing to address the underlying reasons. Unless kids feel emotionally contained, they are going to act out - basic psychology. Same goes for a lot of people in prisons.

 

[Blagsta]

Given the prevalence of personality disorder, mental health problems, substance misuse problems, low levels of literacy etc in the prison population, I do find your lack of concern and unwillingness to address these problems as rather worrying. I also find the insistence on a purely behaviourist reward/punishment view of human nature that is prevalent (not just by you) rather simpleminded and short sighted too. It mistakes symtoms for cause in merely seeking to address behaviour and more importantly doesn't work in the long term.

 

[agricola]

Given the prevalence of personality disorder, mental health problems, substance misuse problems, low levels of literacy etc in the prison population, I do find your lack of concern and unwillingness to address these problems as rather worrying. I also find the insistence on a purely behaviourist reward/punishment view of human nature that is prevalent (not just by you) rather simpleminded and short sighted too. It mistakes symtoms for cause in merely seeking to address behaviour and more importantly doesn't work in the long term.

But the current system is not, and has never been "purely behaviourist" - look at the long list of bodies that you describe that arent working, all of which are designed to do what you have suggested in line with policies that have sought to challenge the "causes" of crime and "cure" the criminal by helping, training and supporting them.

Its those policies which have been failing for the past forty years, and yet you advocate that we are not doing enough to implement them. Despite the forests of cash, and millions of hours of work, which have been thrown at such schemes, they have almost all failed.

Besides, such policies ignore the (for me at least) duty of the Criminal Justice system, and Government itself, of protecting individuals from being victimized by criminals. The best way we have of doing this currently is to separate the criminal from his/her victims by imprisoning them.

Of course there should be equal opportunities for all - but I think the facts speak for themselves. People in the criminal justice system have often been failed by educational institutions, failed by mental health services and social services. Prisoners are often victims too - not a popular view I know, but backed up by facts I think.

I think that this paragraph sums up the differences between us. While the standard of mental healthcare is a separate issue (and FWIW it is a disgrace largely thanks to Governments of the past), I find it unlikely that anyone can with any justice claim that they were failed by an educational institution. Likewise, Social Services can only do so much in a system where they are discouraged from taking an active role in the children they are responsible for.

Finally, the idea that prisoners are victims - at least on the same level as their own victims - is, to me at least, reprehensible.

 

[Blagsta]

But the current system is not, and has never been "purely behaviourist"

I think you'll find it is. It is mostly based on a model of punishment and reward.

- look at the long list of bodies that you describe that arent working, all of which are designed to do what you have suggested in line with policies that have sought to challenge the "causes" of crime and "cure" the criminal by helping, training and supporting them.

Not many schemes have been managed properly, or thought about properly. They're mostly implemented piecemeal with no real or working communication protocols between agencies - look at the probation service for example. Completely useless and won't communicate with other agencies. The implementation of DIP for example is a joke.

Its those policies which have been failing for the past forty years, and yet you advocate that we are not doing enough to implement them.

If that's what you think, I suggest you go back and re-read my posts.

Despite the forests of cash, and millions of hours of work, which have been thrown at such schemes, they have almost all failed. Besides, such policies ignore the (for me at least) duty of the Criminal Justice system, and Government itself, of protecting individuals from being victimized by criminals. The best way we have of doing this currently is to separate the criminal from his/her victims by imprisoning them.

I'm not arguing for the abolition of prison. What I am arguing for is an understanding that pure punishment doesn't work and that given there is a massive prevalence of personality disorder, mental health problems, drug problems etc amongst the prison population, something should be done to address these things - hopefully before people get to be in prison. Proper funding for EBD schools and PRU's for example, properly funded counselling and psychotherapy services that don't just rely on volunteers, more therapy available on the NHS (and not just bloody CBT) etc.

I think that this paragraph sums up the differences between us. While the standard of mental healthcare is a separate issue (and FWIW it is a disgrace largely thanks to Governments of the past),

How can you think its a seperate issue? Its part and parcel of the same issue. How else do you explain the massive prevalence of mental health issues amongst offenders? You just seem happy to ignore the facts and hope they'll go away.

I find it unlikely that anyone can with any justice claim that they were failed by an educational institution.

Bloody hell, what planet do you live on? Have you ever visited any schools? There is lack of schools in Lambeth for example. And I dunno what school you went to, but the one I went to kept getting burnt down, there was a massive problem of violence and bullying to which the teachers turned a blind eye (some teachers were even bullies themselves).

Likewise, Social Services can only do so much in a system where they are discouraged from taking an active role in the children they are responsible for.

I don't understand what you mean here.

Finally, the idea that prisoners are victims - at least on the same level as their own victims - is, to me at least, reprehensible.

Yes, you'd rather just ignore the facts and bury your head in the sand. Good one.

 

[Blagsta]

We haven't even touched on lack of resettlement options for people coming out of prison. Releasing people back onto the streets pretty much guarantess they're gonna be back in prison before long.

In the most recent Home Office resettlement survey, 38% of women prisoners questioned said they were expecting to be homeless on release, and 31% who were in owned or rented property before custody lost it while they were in prison.

http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=49

Many prisoners are homeless going into prison, others lose their homes as a result of being in prison and many have no accommodation arranged on release.

This cycle of factors creates an unsettled situation for potentially vulnerable individuals and directly relates to an increased risk of re- offending, a situation calling for a range of pro-active policies.

Homeless ex-offenders are not automatically entitled to be re-housed.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/policy/policy-968.cfm

The Social Exclusion Unit produced a report in 2002 entitled ‘Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners’. The report stated that 30% of people who go to prison are homeless and 60% of prisoners are homeless on release. This is because many prisoners who have homes when they receive a prison sentence lose their homes while in prison. Given the high and rising prison population this means that approximately 54,000 prisoners are released from prison every year with no home to go to. Without a home and an income, there is a higher chance that ex-prisoners will offend because they become destitute and desperate with no home and no income.

http://www.stgilestrust.org.uk/cgi-bin/articles.pl?section=24&id=823&action=display