|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Treatment of prisoners convicted of crimes
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I was sent this link which shows California prisoners in bunk beds with 3 levels, in what look like warehouses, with extremely limited space. The inmates appear to be spending most of their time in their bunks.
It is often said that jail life is too easy within Canadian society, and I expect it is less crowded than the pictures. One wonders how rehabilitation occurs in such crowded circumstances.
That said, for the criminals who've harmed other people and are dangerous to others in the future, should I really care if they are living in crowded and difficult conditions? They deserve their punishment, though I differentiate those who've harmed others and those who have done things that have not physically harmed others.
Your opinion please.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think it makes it very difficult for them to do anything effective about prison gangs, or internal prison violence.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
That said, for the criminals who've harmed other people and are dangerous to others in the future, should I really care if they are living in crowded and difficult conditions? They deserve their punishment, though I differentiate those who've harmed others and those who have done things that have not physically harmed others.
One of the biggest factors behind the explosion of the American prison population is the War on [Some Classes of People Who Use Certain Types of] Drugs and the associated mandatory minimum sentences. Most of the overflow in U.S. prisons is due to a huge influx of non-violent drug users. An aggravating factor is the trend towards privatizing American prisons. The less a private prison spends per prisoner, the higher its profits.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
One wonders how rehabilitation occurs in such crowded circumstances.
That said, for the criminals who've harmed other people and are dangerous to others in the future, should I really care if they are living in crowded and difficult conditions? They deserve their punishment, though I differentiate those who've harmed others and those who have done things that have not physically harmed others.
Your opinion please.
If you love others as yourself, and you would find it unacceptable to be treated in this way, regardless of what you had done, then I suggest that you should care. People talk rehabilitation, but usually only do control.
Those who try to do something about it are called soft and hand-wringers by those who want prisoners to have a hard time so that they are punished. C'est la vie, same as it ever was.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I find the concept of punishment increasingly meaningless.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
No Prophet asked, quote:
Should I really care if they are living in crowded and difficult conditions?
Yes, we should care, if for no other reason the majority of these people are due for release someday. What kind of people do we want coming back into our communities, those who have been given opportunities to improve their outlook on life or those who have been made to feel more angry, more depressed, and more hopeless by the inhumanity of their prison experience?
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It's not punishment so much as control so that others are not harmed by the dangerous people.
Though the thought that someone is suffering in payment for the suffering they caused does appeal to the emotional 'just desserts' side of my psyche. Is there merit in punishment? Maybe. It has saved me from having to exercise vigilante justice against a dangerous person. The problem with saying punishment is meaningless is that maybe it only means something if the person has affected you personally. Are all criminals penitent? Although they are called penitentiaries in Canada, I think the moniker is aspirational.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
... If you love others as yourself, and you would find it unacceptable to be treated in this way, regardless of what you had done, then I suggest that you should care. ...
Raptor Eye, I think that answers the question. Is there any more that needs saying?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I was sent this link which shows California prisoners in bunk beds with 3 levels, in what look like warehouses, with extremely limited space. The inmates appear to be spending most of their time in their bunks.
It is often said that jail life is too easy within Canadian society, and I expect it is less crowded than the pictures. One wonders how rehabilitation occurs in such crowded circumstances.
That said, for the criminals who've harmed other people and are dangerous to others in the future, should I really care if they are living in crowded and difficult conditions? They deserve their punishment, though I differentiate those who've harmed others and those who have done things that have not physically harmed others.
Your opinion please.
.
First, large part of the population have taken drugs without harming people but being of the wrong color. The 3 strikes rule also means that people have gone to prison for stealing a pair of socks. Javert would be proud.
While it is necessary to restrain people who do damage to others, the current prison system allows the convicted to be damaged by other inmates. Prison rape is routine.
I find it interesting that the "hurt them as punishment" crowd is so certain the Government makes no mistakes in prosecuting and convicting felons. The DNA evidence alone should make them realize how totally false this is.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I have mainly suffered at my own hand. I suffered from bad parenting prior to that. Bad socialization. Bad teaching. What good would punishing any one do? And yes, I've been abused in all manner of ways and repaid the compliment or passed it on and worse.
Those things are their own punishment. To be a sinner is to be punished. By whom? I have suffered grievous loss. How is more punishment appropriate for that. I've been beaten senseless more than once. Sexually assaulted. And? No I've not been raped. I've not lost a loved one to murder.
And if I had? If I were that poor soldier's poor parents? How should the Michaels be punished for that? Or Bridger (April)? Or Hazell (Tia)? Or the Georgian lad (Boston)? Or Stuart Hall. Or my friend Jimmy Saville if he were still alive?
How can these people be punished in any meaningful way for being ... punished?
If we hung them all, would God punish them?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I was sent this link which shows California prisoners in bunk beds with 3 levels, in what look like warehouses, with extremely limited space. The inmates appear to be spending most of their time in their bunks.
Is there any indication where these photos come from? They look pretty alarming.
quote:
One of the biggest factors behind the explosion of the American prison population is the War on [Some Classes of People Who Use Certain Types of] Drugs and the associated mandatory minimum sentences. Most of the overflow in U.S. prisons is due to a huge influx of non-violent drug users.
Out of curiosity, what's the usual range of sentence for possession for personal use (i.e., not for the purpose of trafficking) in the US? It's possible to go to jail for non-trafficking drug offences in Canada, but the numbers involved are nothing like enough to create an overcrowding epidemic.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The punishment of a prison sentence is supposed to be solely the deprivation of liberty and not the living conditions.
It is hard to appreciate just how much of a punishment deprivation of liberty is unless one is actually and genuinely deprived of it.
At a conference on restorative justice I recently heard a story about a new state-of-the-art prison that opened in a northern European country, I think Denmark - one of those that is famous for its liberal prison regimes. Before the prison opened for business, local residents were invited to come and spend the weekend in the jail - under normal incarceration rules. Lots of people signed up, with several seeing it as an opportunity to do a sort of monastic retreat.
Not one of them made it through the weekend.
Whether deprivation of liberty does what it's supposed to, and whether it provides any sense of satisfaction for the victims, is another question altogether.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
One could say that a society can be judged by the way in which it looks after its most vulnerable or powerless members: - children in its care
- people vulnerable by virtue of mental illness
- the elderly
- prisoners
Neither the UK nor the USA scores very well if you look at how we treat the people listed in these categories.
The state makes a lousy parent - we have proof that vulnerable children in the care of the state have been removed from that care to be trafficked around the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
We closed the large victorian 'warehouses' where many long-term mentally ill people lived but we ignored the fact that for some these places provided meaningful work through their farms and workshops.
The elderly are seen as a burden rather than a resource: if you are wealthy and elderly you may be able to buy a reasonable level of care if you need it: if you are reliant on the state they will place you in the cheapest 'home' possible and then reduce the going-rate fees still further. Why are we amazed that people are ill-treated in so-called care homes when the state refuses to pay adequate fees?
Prisons are over-crowded and, once again, the subject of cost comes too high on the list. All prisoners should be given the opportunity for education and for meaningful work. In the case of prisoners who have poor literacy and numeracy skills, the acquisition of decent life-skills should be a priority, if necessary by making classes compulsory: how can society expect people to be rehabilitated on their release if they lack the skills to hold down a job?
The question, as always, often comes down to money: it is understandable that the tax-paying public resents paying for some categories - prisoners especially - to live what our tabloid press see as a 'luxury' life-style. But a responsible government will endeavour to put in place a regime that will not only benefit prisoners but also, in the long-run, wider society.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
One could say that a society can be judged by the way in which it looks after its most vulnerable or powerless members: - children in its care
- people vulnerable by virtue of mental illness
- the elderly
- prisoners
Neither the UK nor the USA scores very well if you look at how we treat the people listed in these categories.
The state makes a lousy parent - we have proof that vulnerable children in the care of the state have been removed from that care to be trafficked around the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
We closed the large victorian 'warehouses' where many long-term mentally ill people lived but we ignored the fact that for some these places provided meaningful work through their farms and workshops.
The elderly are seen as a burden rather than a resource: if you are wealthy and elderly you may be able to buy a reasonable level of care if you need it: if you are reliant on the state they will place you in the cheapest 'home' possible and then reduce the going-rate fees still further. Why are we amazed that people are ill-treated in so-called care homes when the state refuses to pay adequate fees?
Prisons are over-crowded and, once again, the subject of cost comes too high on the list. All prisoners should be given the opportunity for education and for meaningful work. In the case of prisoners who have poor literacy and numeracy skills, the acquisition of decent life-skills should be a priority, if necessary by making classes compulsory: how can society expect people to be rehabilitated on their release if they lack the skills to hold down a job?
The question, as always, often comes down to money: it is understandable that the tax-paying public resents paying for some categories - prisoners especially - to live what our tabloid press see as a 'luxury' life-style. But a responsible government will endeavour to put in place a regime that will not only benefit prisoners but also, in the long-run, wider society.
Good post. It was Dostoyevsky who said (and I paraphrase) that one could tell how civilised a country is by entering its prisons.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The punishment of a prison sentence is supposed to be solely the deprivation of liberty and not the living conditions.
The problem there is that many people committing crimes have no meaningful liberty to start with. When someone's standard of living would increase if they were locked up, where is the deterrent?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The punishment of a prison sentence is supposed to be solely the deprivation of liberty and not the living conditions.
The problem there is that many people committing crimes have no meaningful liberty to start with. When someone's standard of living would increase if they were locked up, where is the deterrent?
I'm guessing you've never been locked up.
The prison I'm attached to is only a few years old and visitors often comment disapprovingly about its "hotel"-like quality. But as the governor tells them, they are seriously underestimating the difference being able to open the cell door when you like makes.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Though the thought that someone is suffering in payment for the suffering they caused does appeal to the emotional 'just desserts' side of my psyche. Is there merit in punishment? Maybe. It has saved me from having to exercise vigilante justice against a dangerous person. The problem with saying punishment is meaningless is that maybe it only means something if the person has affected you personally.
Interestingly contrasted with your Tagline:
quote:
We ought to do good to others as simply as a horse runs, or a bee makes honey, or a vine bears grapes season after season without thinking of the grapes it has borne. (attrib: Marcus Aurelius)
What does it mean to do good to our prisoners? What does it mean to love them, even as we punish them?
Fyodor Dostoyevsky: "you can judge a society by how well it treats its prisoners".
Mahatma Ghandi: "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
In my view, punishment is an archaic notion. We are no good at it, we don't have the stomach or the head for it. How do we proportionally punish people according to their crime where one man may find the simple deprivation of liberty to be akin to torture, where another may have become so institutionalised that prison feels like home? Where Joe the violent drug dealer is punished by putting him in an environment his gang controls, and Tim the pacifist drug addict is punished by putting him at the mercy of such offenders. How do you measure what level of punishment is appropriate in every individual circumstance?
The answer is we don't. We don't care enough to even try. We throw them all in the same pen, and hope for the best. The level of punishment relative to each person is wildly disproportionate, with the people we think should be punished the most often finding the experience less uncomfortable than those we may actually feel sorry for. And such people who only made a silly mistake get regularly raped, beaten and tortured as part of the punishment we put them through.
What is the answer? I think that 'punishment' should be removed altogether as a stated purpose of prison. We may want to lash out at those who hurt us. But it is counter-productive, damaging to society, and unhelpful. Prison should be designed to rehabilitate people, while keeping them away from the wider population long enough for the rehabilitation to work.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
In my view, punishment is an archaic notion. We are no good at it, we don't have the stomach or the head for it. How do we proportionally punish people according to their crime where one man may find the simple deprivation of liberty to be akin to torture, where another may have become so institutionalised that prison feels like home? Where Joe the violent drug dealer is punished by putting him in an environment his gang controls, and Tim the pacifist drug addict is punished by putting him at the mercy of such offenders. How do you measure what level of punishment is appropriate in every individual circumstance?
The answer is we don't. We don't care enough to even try. We throw them all in the same pen, and hope for the best. The level of punishment relative to each person is wildly disproportionate, with the people we think should be punished the most often finding the experience less uncomfortable than those we may actually feel sorry for. And such people who only made a silly mistake get regularly raped, beaten and tortured as part of the punishment we put them through.
What is the answer? I think that 'punishment' should be removed altogether as a stated purpose of prison. We may want to lash out at those who hurt us. But it is counter-productive, damaging to society, and unhelpful. Prison should be designed to rehabilitate people, while keeping them away from the wider population long enough for the rehabilitation to work.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Well said.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Prison should be designed to rehabilitate people, while keeping them away from the wider population long enough for the rehabilitation to work.
It could be argued there is a contradiction in terms right there. How can you possibly hope to rehabilitate people whilst keeping them away from the society you're trying to make them fit for?
I gave up trying to do the metaphysics of prisons about three weeks after setting foot properly inside one for the first time. The paradoxes did my head in.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What is the answer? I think that 'punishment' should be removed altogether as a stated purpose of prison. We may want to lash out at those who hurt us. But it is counter-productive, damaging to society, and unhelpful.
So should there be no punishment for crime?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
In my view, punishment is an archaic notion. We are no good at it, we don't have the stomach or the head for it. How do we proportionally punish people according to their crime where one man may find the simple deprivation of liberty to be akin to torture, where another may have become so institutionalised that prison feels like home? Where Joe the violent drug dealer is punished by putting him in an environment his gang controls, and Tim the pacifist drug addict is punished by putting him at the mercy of such offenders. How do you measure what level of punishment is appropriate in every individual circumstance?
The answer is we don't. We don't care enough to even try. We throw them all in the same pen, and hope for the best. The level of punishment relative to each person is wildly disproportionate, with the people we think should be punished the most often finding the experience less uncomfortable than those we may actually feel sorry for. And such people who only made a silly mistake get regularly raped, beaten and tortured as part of the punishment we put them through.
What is the answer? I think that 'punishment' should be removed altogether as a stated purpose of prison. We may want to lash out at those who hurt us. But it is counter-productive, damaging to society, and unhelpful. Prison should be designed to rehabilitate people, while keeping them away from the wider population long enough for the rehabilitation to work.
Well said.
Seconded.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Good post. It was Dostoyevsky who said (and I paraphrase) that one could tell how civilised a country is by entering its prisons.
Interesting that you attribute to Dostoyevsky. I learned in the 1970s or early 80s that this idea and approximate quote was attributed to Phillipe Pinel who unchained mentally ill people at the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris a generation before Dostoyevsky.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The punishment of a prison sentence is supposed to be solely the deprivation of liberty and not the living conditions.
The problem there is that many people committing crimes have no meaningful liberty to start with. When someone's standard of living would increase if they were locked up, where is the deterrent?
I'm guessing you've never been locked up.
I guess you've never really seen such desperate conditions that lead to even prison becoming an attractive option.
Food and shelter are a much more basic need than liberty.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
<snip>
What is the answer? I think that 'punishment' should be removed altogether as a stated purpose of prison. We may want to lash out at those who hurt us. But it is counter-productive, damaging to society, and unhelpful. Prison should be designed to rehabilitate people, while keeping them away from the wider population long enough for the rehabilitation to work.
This post advances compelling ideas if we focus only on the offender and the specifics of the 'system's' response to them. The putting of a person in to a prison for a lengthy sentence who has physically or sexually assaulted or murdered may be very helpful to the victims and the victims' families. I personally would say that this is definitely the case. And it may prevent extra-judicial action against the offender.
The additional idea of restorative justice fails if the victim and family doesn't want to be retraumatised by seeing the offender and if they don't believe the offender who claims contriteness only after convicted and not before. They may also disbelieve the offender's possibility of rehabilitation and be convinced of his/her incorrigibility.
Thus I hold that punishment *may* in personal violence situations be entirely appropriate and create something of healing for victims.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I guess you've never really seen such desperate conditions that lead to even prison becoming an attractive option.
Food and shelter are a much more basic need than liberty.
Many people imprisoned long term, or facing that prospect, prefer to end their lives rather than face the prospect of "life" without liberty.
[ 04. June 2013, 16:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
<snip>
What is the answer? I think that 'punishment' should be removed altogether as a stated purpose of prison. We may want to lash out at those who hurt us. But it is counter-productive, damaging to society, and unhelpful. Prison should be designed to rehabilitate people, while keeping them away from the wider population long enough for the rehabilitation to work.
This post advances compelling ideas if we focus only on the offender and the specifics of the 'system's' response to them.
Not even then, I'd say. If we make rehabilitation the only goal then we are effectively saying that a criminal who needs no rehabilitation may go free immediately. Does anyone think that would make for a safer or better society?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I guess you've never really seen such desperate conditions that lead to even prison becoming an attractive option.
Food and shelter are a much more basic need than liberty.
Many people imprisoned long term, or facing that prospect, prefer to end their lives rather than face the prospect of "life" without liberty.
Are they the same people TGC is talking about?
I mean, I'm sure I would utterly detest life in prison. But then, I have a very nice life to start with. If I was forced to live on scraps foraged from rubbish bins and sleep under bridges all year round then three meals a day and a roof over my head may well prove the more appealing option, even if my liberty to choose which bridge would have to be surrendered.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What is the answer? I think that 'punishment' should be removed altogether as a stated purpose of prison. We may want to lash out at those who hurt us. But it is counter-productive, damaging to society, and unhelpful.
So should there be no punishment for crime?
No more than the punishment of being recognised as a criminal, being deprived of certian liberties and treated as a person in need of restoration before you can be allowed to enter society fully again. In many ways crime is its own punishment. Of course, not for everyone. We may want criminals to feel more punished than that. But we have to be willing to really put our hearts and minds into punishing them appropriately. And this damages the people carrying out that punishment, and the society mandating it. So I would say it's best not to try, and to focus on more useful and intelligent methods of dealing with crime.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Thus I hold that punishment *may* in personal violence situations be entirely appropriate and create something of healing for victims.
It appeals to our primitive instincts, but evidence shows that it is crude and often poorly effective in helping victims heal. The most helpful way of dealing with crime for a victim is to meet with the offender and talk with them. This seems ridiculous, but it works. It restores the power dynamic, it removes the fear of the 'other', it allows the victim to voice their feelings, and be validated. If you've read the personal accounts of people meeting their online trolls for instance, or meeting the people who hurt them, it is revelatory.
Someone who has been hurt wants the other person to know how much they hurt them, to know what they put them through, to understand and to feel sorry. One way is to make the offender feel some form of pain or discomfort in approximation of the pain they caused. That is where the notion of punishment comes from. You humiliated my sense of dignity and personhood by robbing me, so I want you to feel like your rights have been stripped away as well. You made me feel pain by beating me, so I want you to feel pain through deprivation.
But we do not have to rely on such blunt tools. We have words. And if both parties are willing, such face-to-face reconciliation can heal wounds far more effectively than extending the cycle of violence. Causing harm to another doesn't make anyone feel better. And it is usually so divorced from the personal knowledge of the victim, it does little to help.
Do victims need to see punishment, or do they need to see justice. It is important to realise the restorative power of bringing things into light through a court case and having one's pain and suffering validated by a jury of peers and a judge of the land. That recognition and validation is the most restorative part of the justice process IMO.
So I am arguing to remove 'punishment' as a goal and focus fully on rehabilitation and restoration, not just because it is best for the offender, as well as for society as a whole, but because it is also best for the victim.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Prison should be designed to rehabilitate people, while keeping them away from the wider population long enough for the rehabilitation to work.
It could be argued there is a contradiction in terms right there. How can you possibly hope to rehabilitate people whilst keeping them away from the society you're trying to make them fit for?
By creating a controlled environment that is more like a microcosm of the wider society. Prisons should probably be more like little villages, rather than like warehouses.
Also many modern prisons are based on a partial-release model, where the prisoners are allowed a measure of freedom to get used to living in society, while still being controlled and housed by the state. Probation is another halfway-house stage for full reintegration. It's not perfect but its a step in the right direction.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
Here in MN, one used to hear relatively often of street folks getting themselves arrested in the late autumn, so as to be in jail for the sometimes brutally cold winter.
In these days of milder winters (and a legal system that no longer gives automatic 90-day sentences for disturbing the peace), it appears to be less common.
[ 04. June 2013, 18:44: Message edited by: jbohn ]
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So should there be no punishment for crime?
No more than the punishment of being recognised as a criminal, being deprived of certian liberties and treated as a person in need of restoration before you can be allowed to enter society fully again.
You're going to have to expand on that. Because the way I see it it's entirely possible to commit a crime and yet have no intention of committing another one, so what "restoration" or "rehabilitation" would be required in that case?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Thus I hold that punishment *may* in personal violence situations be entirely appropriate and create something of healing for victims.
It appeals to our primitive instincts, but evidence shows that it is crude and often poorly effective in helping victims heal. The most helpful way of dealing with crime for a victim is to meet with the offender and talk with them. This seems ridiculous, but it works. It restores the power dynamic, it removes the fear of the 'other', it allows the victim to voice their feelings, and be validated. If you've read the personal accounts of people meeting their online trolls for instance, or meeting the people who hurt them, it is revelatory.
Fail. An online troll is not the same as someone shoving their cock up your ass after beating you over the head.
Fail again. Knowing that the perpetrator is locked up means they're not doing it to someone else.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Are they the same people TGC is talking about?
I mean, I'm sure I would utterly detest life in prison. But then, I have a very nice life to start with. If I was forced to live on scraps foraged from rubbish bins and sleep under bridges all year round then three meals a day and a roof over my head may well prove the more appealing option, even if my liberty to choose which bridge would have to be surrendered.
I think my mistake was to fall for the comparison.
Of course it is easy to imagine things that could be "as bad as" or "worse than" deprivation of liberty - such as, for instance, adding privation of basic access to healthcare to that deprivation of liberty (something that is virtually systemic in a couple of prisons I know). (That said, I still think people are underestimating what deprivation of liberty involves. My prison is cleaner, brighter, and with more mod cons than the one we left to move into it, but you get far fewer of the tramps using it as a winter sleepover than before).
The question I understood the OP to be asking was whether the punishment aspect of prison sentences should be about more than deprivation of liberty. My answer to that is a firm no. The sentence is to the deprivation of liberty, not to other deprivations.
However, I think that the question behind no_prophet's question is whether there is any form of action, be it punishment or restorative justice, that victims or their families are more likely to deem sufficient. Unfortunately, I think the answer to that is no. There are too many variables; and no_prophet, I don't think any amount of punishment is going to give you the sense of justice served that you seek ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Prisons should probably be more like little villages, rather than like warehouses.
Perhaps. The smallest prisons I know are also the most insanitary, involve the most physical deprivation, and have the least facilities.
(I recently visited a prison not far from here where I was shown into a cell with twelve inmates, in bunks stacked four high around three walls of a cell about 20m². They were about to get a thirteenth inmate on a mattress on the floor, and the twelve in there already thought it was me. I got quite a reception).
At the same time they are generally the prisons with the warders who have the time and inclination to engage in a form of social work as well as just locking and unlocking doors, and are the friendliest.
None of which really answers the question of how depriving people of their liberty is actually supposed to facilitate rehabilitation, especially given that the environment is so diametrically opposed to the outside precisely because of the degree of control. I know some people (like the old guy in Shawshank Redemption) who function better in prison than outside it, which is a bit sad really. As l'Organist says, those Victorian workshops weren't so bad in their way for some.
[ 04. June 2013, 20:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I am disturbed by your suffering, no prophet. Whether it's vicarious or not. Eutychus is right. You shall have full restitution. What would have from me?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Thus I hold that punishment *may* in personal violence situations be entirely appropriate and create something of healing for victims.
It appeals to our primitive instincts, but evidence shows that it is crude and often poorly effective in helping victims heal. The most helpful way of dealing with crime for a victim is to meet with the offender and talk with them. This seems ridiculous, but it works. It restores the power dynamic, it removes the fear of the 'other', it allows the victim to voice their feelings, and be validated. If you've read the personal accounts of people meeting their online trolls for instance, or meeting the people who hurt them, it is revelatory.
Fail. An online troll is not the same as someone shoving their cock up your ass after beating you over the head.
Fail again. Knowing that the perpetrator is locked up means they're not doing it to someone else.
You're very quick to shout fail. I'm not sure how helpful that reaction is to the conversation though. Of course different crimes are different. That doesn't mean the entire concept of restorative justice as opposed to punitive justice is flawed. Perhaps you could elaborate further on your criticisms?
To help you understand what I'm talking about a bit more, see this website for Victim-Offender Reconciliation and this article presents the case more clearly than I can. As examples of the kinds of healing restorative justice can bring for victims (yes even rape victims ) see the personal testimonies on the website Restorative Justice Online
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So should there be no punishment for crime?
No more than the punishment of being recognised as a criminal, being deprived of certian liberties and treated as a person in need of restoration before you can be allowed to enter society fully again.
You're going to have to expand on that. Because the way I see it it's entirely possible to commit a crime and yet have no intention of committing another one, so what "restoration" or "rehabilitation" would be required in that case?
You first. Give me some specifics or I'll just be guessing at what I'm trying to answer.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
My point is that you cannot compare offences against the person, against the soul and spirit, with intellectual or property offences. You just cannot. Sure, a troll can get someone outraged and they can lose sleep, but it is nothing like living with the legacy of violence done to your person. I've experienced both, and they do not compare.
Restorative justice is largely in Canada a process for people who have some connection to each other. Say people from the same community who are from the same culture or have some distant connection. It is also for community reconciliation in the case of the Residential Schools which transported children of whole communities to abusive and/or culturally oppressive and exterminating boarding schools.
In some specific and heart warming cases I think restorative justice is probably appropriate. In others, in my opinion, it is hopeful nonsense, such as offender apologies to those they've raped, when the research data tells us that they may well deal with the stress of the apology session by going back to their prison cells and masturbating to thoughts and fantasies of further rape. (I've read through the research and communicated with Corrections Canada - the dept that runs prisons here federally.)
It is also entirely different when a total stranger greviously harms. Creating injuries physical and psychological, and further puts those harmed through a reliving in a court room. Then, and only then, admits and cries and says "sorry". My response is "apology heard, let's see you live it out, and you're still getting your lock-up and what ever sanctions the court wishes to impose."
I think this is actually a Christian idea, as distasteful as it may be, and whether true or not. It speaks to human nature reflected in the sacrificial idea that God did indeed demand punishment for sin, and had to see definite action in addition to Jesus' good words. I think that the idea that Christ's sacrifice lets the offender off of earthly control, sanction and punishment is akin to the idea that humans can create heaven ourselves, a Jerusalem in this fair land etc.
Note. I have not personally experienced some forms of violence about which I write, but I have experienced some of it. I have prior generations of family who experienced violence differently in wartime as refugees. And damn God for it, family members also have as I've previously posted on shipboard. I'm rather sensitised about it, though not sensitive at this time. I have since tried to play it forward, as they say, by supporting those thusly harmed in direct ways as able. I do struggle with the evident suffering of some of the offenders, who pull out all the stops and reference their bad experiences that they see leading to their harm of others. However, we must remind ourselves that many people get beaten, raped, become alcoholics, have a family member murdered and don't go on to play these things forward into the lives of innocent people. And, as I've noted, it is entirely different to voluntarily say "I did it and am sorry", turning yourself in for legal handling, than to deny, to run off, and be convicted after trial.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So should there be no punishment for crime?
No more than the punishment of being recognised as a criminal, being deprived of certian liberties and treated as a person in need of restoration before you can be allowed to enter society fully again.
You're going to have to expand on that. Because the way I see it it's entirely possible to commit a crime and yet have no intention of committing another one, so what "restoration" or "rehabilitation" would be required in that case?
You first. Give me some specifics or I'll just be guessing at what I'm trying to answer.
OK, for the sake of argument:
A specific person has caused great suffering to me and/or those I love. So I kill him. I have no desire to ever kill anyone else, or to live the rest of my life as anything other than a good, upstanding citizen. I am fully aware that what I did was wrong (and why). I am perfectly and honestly prepared to apologise to the victim's family and friends, and to compensate them financially for their loss should it be deemed necessary.
So it's all good then, right? In the absence of any concept of punishment, no further action needs to be taken?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
You first. Give me some specifics or I'll just be guessing at what I'm trying to answer.
OK, for the sake of argument:
A specific person has caused great suffering to me and/or those I love. So I kill him. I have no desire to ever kill anyone else, or to live the rest of my life as anything other than a good, upstanding citizen. I am fully aware that what I did was wrong (and why). I am perfectly and honestly prepared to apologise to the victim's family and friends, and to compensate them financially for their loss should it be deemed necessary.
So it's all good then, right? In the absence of any concept of punishment, no further action needs to be taken?
A good question. I don't have an answer since I'm not an expert in this. I'm just proposing ideas to consider. My ideas bounced off the back of your hypothetical situation are as follows:
In other cultures this would be considered perfectly acceptable. As long as you were willing and able to pay the blood price demanded, then you would then be allowed to go free. We have changed our ideas about justice to mean such an idea appears abhorrent to us now. We insist that the killer is hurt or killed in recompense. Why?
Would another solution other than killing the person who hurt you have been possible. The fact that you decided to kill them rather than any other solution is important and shows a situation that needs to be resolved. You felt powerless to act in any other way, the police perhaps were not able to protect you. Surely finding out what was behind the killing, and finding solutions to prevent it going so far again, if not for you then for others in similar circumstances, would be better than just trying to hurt you in response.
Taking another person's life is psychologically harmful in itself. How will you live with yourself afterwards? Have you desensitised yourself to taking a life now? You would need psychogical assessment and counselling to repair the trauma caused by your actions.
And finally, what you propose sounds very restorative to the victim's family, making apology, making financial restitution to them. surely this is better for the victims than receiving nothing but the knowledge that you are being punished or mistreated?
And BTW I am not saying that these things should be the sole interest of the justice system. Deterrence and incarceration have their useful effects as well. I'm just saying that restoration and rehabilitation should be the primary focus.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
In some specific and heart warming cases I think restorative justice is probably appropriate. In others, in my opinion, it is hopeful nonsense, such as offender apologies to those they've raped, when the research data tells us that they may well deal with the stress of the apology session by going back to their prison cells and masturbating to thoughts and fantasies of further rape.
Fantasies of rape show that the rehabilitation process still has a long way to go. A face-to-face apology is not a magic bullet that fixes everything. Both sides are still very damaged by the crime. Perhaps neither will ever be truly and fully healed. But surely we can try. And surely the mere act of apology, even if it doesn't immedietly fix everything, does some good by itself. It is the start of the process, not the end. And the process needs more than a mere 'sorry'. It may take years of counselling, for both parties.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
My point is that you cannot compare offences against the person, against the soul and spirit, with intellectual or property offences. You just cannot.
Agreed. But restorative justice works for both. Not because they are the same, but because it is effective in many different situations.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
Googling restorative justice provides lots of positive evidence.
In the UK, we have the Restorative Justice Council. See this page for a summary of evidence that it works.
And an interesting testimony from a criminal who burgled houses is here.
quote:
Going to prison, that’s just running away and getting away from it all. But to actually go into a room and sit down knowing that they’re going to walk through that door in a few minutes time and want to know why you stole from them – that’s scary for me. Every time, it kind of broke me, but it made me as well.
And testimony from a victim who felt scared in her own house after being burgled:
quote:
I got home [after meeting the burglar] and felt completely different about the house. It’s home again and I don’t have to be scared. It’s like I’ve been given a new lease of life. I never got our possessions back, but I felt healed. Putting a face to the criminal made so much difference because he wasn’t the scary character I’d expected.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
In other cultures this would be considered perfectly acceptable. As long as you were willing and able to pay the blood price demanded, then you would then be allowed to go free. We have changed our ideas about justice to mean such an idea appears abhorrent to us now. We insist that the killer is hurt or killed in recompense. Why?
For one thing, it means that rich people can no longer simply buy the death of someone they don't like.
quote:
Would another solution other than killing the person who hurt you have been possible. The fact that you decided to kill them rather than any other solution is important and shows a situation that needs to be resolved. You felt powerless to act in any other way, the police perhaps were not able to protect you. Surely finding out what was behind the killing, and finding solutions to prevent it going so far again, if not for you then for others in similar circumstances, would be better than just trying to hurt you in response.
That's irrelevant to what should be done with me. Especially if the person causing the suffering has done so without breaking the law, rendering the police impotent.
quote:
Taking another person's life is psychologically harmful in itself. How will you live with yourself afterwards? Have you desensitised yourself to taking a life now? You would need psychogical assessment and counselling to repair the trauma caused by your actions.
Says who?
quote:
And finally, what you propose sounds very restorative to the victim's family, making apology, making financial restitution to them. surely this is better for the victims than receiving nothing but the knowledge that you are being punished or mistreated?
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I certainly know that I would feel like I was getting away with it.
quote:
And BTW I am not saying that these things should be the sole interest of the justice system. Deterrence and incarceration have their useful effects as well.
Only if you accept that punishment has a useful role to play.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Would another solution other than killing the person who hurt you have been possible. The fact that you decided to kill them rather than any other solution is important and shows a situation that needs to be resolved. You felt powerless to act in any other way, the police perhaps were not able to protect you. Surely finding out what was behind the killing, and finding solutions to prevent it going so far again, if not for you then for others in similar circumstances, would be better than just trying to hurt you in response.
That's irrelevant to what should be done with me. Especially if the person causing the suffering has done so without breaking the law, rendering the police impotent.
I don't see it as irrelevant. What's done with you should include seeking to prevent similar situations happening again. If a person was causing you enough harm to make you take his life yet was not breaking the law then perhaps the law needs to be changed. An exploration of that should be part and parcel of the justice system IMO.
If you killed someone for a reason, then what happens if that reason reoccurs - would you do the same? What if another person harmed you in a similar way?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
And BTW I am not saying that these things should be the sole interest of the justice system. Deterrence and incarceration have their useful effects as well.
Only if you accept that punishment has a useful role to play.
On occasion, perhaps. But it should not be the primary focus. Actually I would be interested in what purpose you think strict punishment would have in the hypothetical case you present. Would locking you up in a small room for a period of years deter you from doing it again, did it deter you for doing it in the first place? In fact does it help anyone. Or is it all solely to create the impression that you're not 'getting away with it'?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'm having trouble with the blanket statements that restorative justice is good by its nature. It has a feel good, looks good aura, that may work for some people some of the time, but I think is fraught with psychological danger to the person who was harmed. The examples given are not of offences 'of the person', burglary is property. Armed robbery approaches an offence on the person, but it is still about property or shares a focus of person and property. It is direct harm to human beings that is my focus.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
NOTHING should EVER be forced on or expected of a victim. As usual nowadays I'm astounded at how little, I mean how much NOTHING the Church does. For victims and criminals. I suspect MORE is done for the latter than the former.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Please would you consider using bold or italics rather than capitals. I feel like I am being shouted at.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I'm having trouble with the blanket statements that restorative justice is good by its nature. It has a feel good, looks good aura, that may work for some people some of the time, but I think is fraught with psychological danger to the person who was harmed. The examples given are not of offences 'of the person', burglary is property. Armed robbery approaches an offence on the person, but it is still about property or shares a focus of person and property. It is direct harm to human beings that is my focus.
20 years or more ago, I did a lot of voluntary work on what is now called restorative justice. I was nominated to serve on a committee reporting to cabinet on the question in the application of the principle to juvenile offenders (why I don't know, as it has nothing to do with my normal field of work).
At that stage, the only real application was in NZ, from memory called case conferencing. The experience there showed that it was very beneficial in dealing with the usual run of cases which came before the children's courts - petty theft, minor property damage and so forth. There were few crimes of violence against the person involved. An essential element of the system was an acceptance of guilt by the offender, and there were safeguards built in that this acceptance came after competent and independent legal advice. Most offenders and victims were both Maori - well out of proportion to the population at large.
The results showed that there was a lower incidence of recidivism amongst those young people who had participated. This was an objective measure. A survey showed that a higher proportion of victims were happier with the outcome than were those where the prosecution had gone to a defended hearing. There are some problems with placing too much reliance on this, because there is no comparison of apples with apples. There was no court hearing in case conferencing and thus no need for the victim to give evidence in a very formal atmosphere and to be cross-examined. There was no acceptance of guilt. Despite this, the conclusion was that the NZ system was working well.
We ended up recommending a trial in NSW. Outside the Sydney/Newcastle/Wollongong strip, aboriginal youth is grossly over-represented in the children's court criminal system. There is not the same high proportion of aboriginal victims here as of Maori victims in NZ. More of the matters here involved some element of violence. What did exist here was the continued strong community influence of traditional aboriginal elders and our recommendation was that the participation of these elders be part of any trial.
Of course, the usual problems of election campaigns and the strong Laura Norder role of radio commentators and of some elements of the press meant that little attention was paid to the recommendations we made. AFAIK, there has been a very limited attention paid to it, although there is court diversion scheme in operation - I can't quickly find ant statistics on it.
IMO, any robbery is an offence of violence against a person rather than a property offence. In an armed robbery, the violence is threatened or given by a weapon rather than pure bodily force, but violence is always involved.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
should I really care if they are living in crowded and difficult conditions?
If they are to be released, you should care very much.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Would locking you up in a small room for a period of years ... deter you for doing it in the first place?
Yes, it does.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
