Prison Disorder

[StuartO]

Rioting in prison in UK results in a measured follow-up consideration of personal culpability whereas in the US lethal force would be used to bring a riot rapidly to an end.  At least we now have "tornado squads" in UK which are trained and equipped to deploy serious force to end a riot relatively quickly.

Apparently the loss of control is all down to the availability in prisons of so-called-legal highs and shortage of staff leading to the frustration of imates being locked up for too long.  There are suggestions that we should be doing much more to allow prisoners reasonable conditions, without long periods of being locked in their cells and more and better rehabilitation.  That way, we are told, the risk of riots (and re-offending after release) will be reduced.

Prisoners in UK ordinarily serve only half of their sentence before being released (or less if the sentence is under four years) and our system of follow-up surveillance allows them freedom to reoffend.  Our Probation Service has no teeth, so while in the US failure to attend a single probation review would automatically provoke arrest (by a uniformed and armed Probation Officer) and immediate return to prison.  In UK we would merely write the non-attender a letter encouraging better compliance.

The primary responsibility of government is the safety of the people, including safety from criminals who are likely to re-offend, which despite our current efforts to rehabilitate all, most prisoners who are released are likely to do.

So-called experts tell us that simply locking people up and throwing away the key "doesn't work" but what do they mean by this and what is the evidence for their view?

[Guest pelmetman]

StuartO - 2016-12-23 9:11 AM

Rioting in prison in UK results in a measured follow-up consideration of personal culpability whereas in the US lethal force would be used to bring a riot rapidly to an end.  At least we now have "tornado squads" in UK which are trained and equipped to deploy serious force to end a riot relatively quickly.

 

Apparently the loss of control is all down to the availability in prisons of so-called-legal highs and shortage of staff leading to the frustration of imates being locked up for too long.  There are suggestions that we should be doing much more to allow prisoners reasonable conditions, without long periods of being locked in their cells and more and better rehabilitation.  That way, we are told, the risk of riots (and re-offending after release) will be reduced.

 

Prisoners in UK ordinarily serve only half of their sentence before being released (or less if the sentence is under four years) and our system of follow-up surveillance allows them freedom to reoffend.  Our Probation Service has no teeth, so while in the US failure to attend a single probation review would automatically provoke arrest (by a uniformed and armed Probation Officer) and immediate return to prison.  In UK we would merely write the non-attender a letter encouraging better compliance.

 

The primary responsibility of government is the safety of the people, including safety from criminals who are likely to re-offend, which despite our current efforts to rehabilitate all, most prisoners who are released are likely to do.

 

So-called experts tell us that simply locking people up and throwing away the key "doesn't work" but what do they mean by this and what is the evidence for their view?

 

As usual the loony liberals have manged to mess up what ever they get involved in >:-).........They should stop trying to blame society, and blame their brain dead "hug a hoody" schemes and the scum who commit the crimes......It time the "R" word was changed from rehabilitation to retribution *-) ........A 4 year sentence should mean 4 years, a life sentence should mean life, although I'd favour a bit of Chatham hemp for certain crimes :-| .......Lock them up for longer and throw away the key if they wont mend their ways.......what we'll spend on prisons will be easily outweighed by the saving at the courts on lawyers, police time, insurance claims and the major bonus....... less victims of crimes ;-) .........

[John52]

Why does England always suck up to America and shun its European neighbours?

Its left us with the highest rates of incarceration in Western Europe http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38403756 (I think America has about the highest in the world/)

The problem with 'tough' prisons is prisoners learn how to survive them, so they come out worse than they went in. Usual political climate seems to favour punishment over rehabilitation, locking them up and making Prison Officers redundant, at the cost of losing their valuable training and experience and paying them early retirement etc. .Todays political climate seems to be swinging back towards rehabilitation again, hiring and training new Prison Officers.

I understand half the prisoners are in prison for drugs, but the Government still won't admit their drugs policy isn't working.

And the evidence is overwhelming that as the gap between rich and poor increases crime increases with it. But the Government has its fingers in its ears about that too.

What a waste.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2016-12-23 9:58 AM

 

Why does England always suck up to America and shun its European neighbours?

Its left us with the highest rates of incarceration in Western Europe http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38403756 (I think America has about the highest in the world/)

The problem with 'tough' prisons is prisoners learn how to survive them, so they come out worse than they went in. Usual political climate seems to favour punishment over rehabilitation, locking them up and making Prison Officers redundant, at the cost of losing their valuable training and experience and paying them early retirement etc. .Todays political climate seems to be swinging back towards rehabilitation again, hiring and training new Prison Officers.

I understand half the prisoners are in prison for drugs, but the Government still won't admit their drugs policy isn't working.

And the evidence is overwhelming that as the gap between rich and poor increases crime increases with it. But the Government has its fingers in its ears about that too.

What a waste.

 

So its not their fault they're in prison? *-) ............

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2016-12-23 10:02 AM

 

So its not their fault they're in prison? *-) ............

 

Its not their fault when they are born into homelessness and deprivation whilst the Duke of Westminster inherits £10bn tax free.

But thats beside the point.

Retribution without Rehabilitation is clearly a disaster.

[John52]

Been watching the TV programme showing swarms of police on Oxford street to stop people picking the pockets of wealthy careless shoppers. Moving the homeless out from where they are safe under the CCTV, to where they are out of the way to urinated on and bricked by yobs when they are asleep.

Contrary to Daily Mail tripe the Benefit system is set up to reject as many people as possible to save money. The system will let people starve to death. Some people have no stake in it. Why wouldn't they turn to crime?

[antony1969]

John52 - 2016-12-23 10:12 AM

 

pelmetman - 2016-12-23 10:02 AM

 

So its not their fault they're in prison? *-) ............

 

Its not their fault when they are born into homelessness and deprivation whilst the Duke of Westminster inherits £10bn tax free.

But thats beside the point.

Retribution without Rehabilitation is clearly a disaster.

 

My old granny and grandad born into Geordie and Scottish slums ... Never broke the law and struggled on little money ... If only they'd known its was OK to rob because " its not their fault " they wouldn't have had to endure all those struggles ... Poor sods

[antony1969]

John52 - 2016-12-23 10:22 AM

 

Been watching the TV programme showing swarms of police on Oxford street to stop people picking the pockets of wealthy careless shoppers. Moving the homeless out from where they are safe under the CCTV, to where they are out of the way to urinated on and bricked by yobs when they are asleep.

Contrary to Daily Mail tripe the Benefit system is set up to reject as many people as possible to save money. The system will let people starve to death. Some people have no stake in it. Why wouldn't they turn to crime?

 

Well done the police ... How do you know those who's pockets have been picked are wealthy and what is a careless shopper

Those poor darlings rioting over the horrendous conditions they face might wanna go to Thailand , Brazil , China , Mexico to sample real prison ... Next disturbance get the armed cops in with a few machine guns and tidy the place up ... Simple

[John52]

antony1969 - 2016-12-23 10:27 AM

 

John52 - 2016-12-23 10:12 AM

 

pelmetman - 2016-12-23 10:02 AM

 

So its not their fault they're in prison? *-) ............

 

Its not their fault when they are born into homelessness and deprivation whilst the Duke of Westminster inherits £10bn tax free.

But thats beside the point.

Retribution without Rehabilitation is clearly a disaster.

 

My old granny and grandad born into Geordie and Scottish slums ... Never broke the law and struggled on little money ... If only they'd known its was OK to rob because " its not their fault " they wouldn't have had to endure all those struggles ... Poor sods

 

Not really the same Anthony where everyone was in the same boat. There wasn't the same gap between rich and poor, and so many material things and gadgets for kids to crave and steal. Mobile phones etc didn't exist.

[John52]

antony1969 - 2016-12-23 10:35 AM

get the armed cops in

Hardly been a success in America has it?

If they are going to get life for petty crime it makes it worthwhile to shoot potential witnesses.

[antony1969]

John52 - 2016-12-23 10:37 AM

 

antony1969 - 2016-12-23 10:27 AM

 

John52 - 2016-12-23 10:12 AM

 

pelmetman - 2016-12-23 10:02 AM

 

So its not their fault they're in prison? *-) ............

 

Its not their fault when they are born into homelessness and deprivation whilst the Duke of Westminster inherits £10bn tax free.

But thats beside the point.

Retribution without Rehabilitation is clearly a disaster.

 

My old granny and grandad born into Geordie and Scottish slums ... Never broke the law and struggled on little money ... If only they'd known its was OK to rob because " its not their fault " they wouldn't have had to endure all those struggles ... Poor sods

 

Not really the same Anthony where everyone was in the same boat. There wasn't the same gap between rich and poor, and so many material things and gadgets for kids to crave and steal. Mobile phones etc didn't exist.

 

Wasn't the same gap between rich and poor ... Give up ... The gadgets to steal may be different but the thieving still went on and why are you talking about kids ... I thought the prison troubles weren't in YOI they were all big boys prisons

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2016-12-23 10:37 AM

 

antony1969 - 2016-12-23 10:27 AM

 

John52 - 2016-12-23 10:12 AM

 

pelmetman - 2016-12-23 10:02 AM

 

So its not their fault they're in prison? *-) ............

 

Its not their fault when they are born into homelessness and deprivation whilst the Duke of Westminster inherits £10bn tax free.

But thats beside the point.

Retribution without Rehabilitation is clearly a disaster.

 

My old granny and grandad born into Geordie and Scottish slums ... Never broke the law and struggled on little money ... If only they'd known its was OK to rob because " its not their fault " they wouldn't have had to endure all those struggles ... Poor sods

 

Not really the same Anthony where everyone was in the same boat. There wasn't the same gap between rich and poor, and so many material things and gadgets for kids to crave and steal. Mobile phones etc didn't exist.

 

So seeing as I was brought up 6 of us in a 2 bed rented flat, I should've resorted to crime to make my way in life? *-) ............

 

If misguided folk like you didn't give them the impression its alright to steal coz its not their fault, then probably a fair few wouldn't of ended up in a life of crime :-| ......

 

 

 

 

[antony1969]

John52 - 2016-12-23 10:43 AM

 

antony1969 - 2016-12-23 10:35 AM

get the armed cops in

Hardly been a success in America has it?

If they are going to get life for petty crime it makes it worthwhile to shoot potential witnesses.

 

Why when did the American cops go in and blitz rioting prisoners like I suggested here ?

Potential witnesses ?????

[StuartO]

John52 - 2016-12-23 10:22 AMBeen watching the TV programme showing swarms of police on Oxford street to stop people picking the pockets of wealthy careless shoppers.

 

Even if they are wealthy and/or careless, surely you're not saying that thieves are entitled to steal from them are you?

 

Moving the homeless out from where they are safe under the CCTV, to where they are out of the way to urinated on and bricked by yobs when they are asleep.Contrary to Daily Mail tripe the Benefit system is set up to reject as many people as possible to save money. The system will let people starve to death. Some people have no stake in it. Why wouldn't they turn to crime?

 

So having become criminals, should they not be dealt with as criminals?  Or is their slide into crime our fault because we didn't do more for them, no matter how much of a loser/waster/fool they might be?

 

Does anyone know why locking criminals up and throwing away the key doesn't work, as the experts claim?

 

[Guest pelmetman]

StuartO - 2016-12-23 10:52 AM/>Does anyone know why locking criminals up and throwing away the key doesn't work, as the experts claim?

Apparently it will cause a slump in world halo polish prices >:-) ......

[John52]

StuartO - 2016-12-23 10:52 AMDoes anyone know why locking criminals up and throwing away the key doesn't work, as the experts claim?

Because there are too many to lock up for life.Even the Tory party is beginning to realise that.Some here haven't caught on though *-)

[malc d]

The question is - are there not enough prisons ?

 

.............. or too many criminals ?

 

 

;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2016-12-23 5:09 PM

 

The question is - are there not enough prisons ?

 

.............. or too many criminals ?

 

 

;-)

 

Seeing as we have a population of over 65 million, 80 odd thousand prisoners seems remarkably low, so a few more prisons would not only be justified for locking up more low life, but make economic financial sense to me ;-) .......

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Violet1956]

In a former career of mine I had the dubious pleasure of coming across many criminals. I saw none who were jailed that did not deserve it and plenty who managed to get away with their crimes until all non-custodial sentencing options had been exhausted. Our prison officers deserve to be part of a regime that does not make them vulnerable to violence and mass disobedience. That tends to be one that is adequately staffed, humane, and one which gives prisoners the chance of reform through access to education and the opportunity to acquire skills that just might encourage them to turn their lives around. Those prisoners who are receptive to such assistance need guarantees that they are safe from the hard core criminals who at the moment appear to be allowed to run many of our jails. I bet the prison officers know who these hard-core prisoners are. Let’s listen to what the grass roots say and put the hardcore in the same place making their lives as hellish as the ones they impose on their victims. They deserve nothing less and their reign of terror has to be stopped. Inevitably this would require more money to be invested in our prison system. The problem is that most people believe that there are far more worthy recipients of public expenditure. It is easy to understand why this is so but if we do not agree that there needs to be greater expenditure in this area, be it by building more modern prisons, increasing staffing, better staff training and greater remuneration for prison officers in recognition of what a very difficult job they do, then we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. :-(

[John52]

pelmetman - 2016-12-23 5:34 PM

remarkably low, so a few more prisons would not only be justified for locking up more low life, but make economic financial sense to me ;-) .......

Your 'remarkably low' is the highest in Western Europe.

May I suggest you find out how much that costs before declaring it makes 'economic financial sense' *-)

[Violet1956]

Double post removed

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2016-12-23 10:29 PM

 

pelmetman - 2016-12-23 5:34 PM

remarkably low, so a few more prisons would not only be justified for locking up more low life, but make economic financial sense to me ;-) .......

Your 'remarkably low' is the highest in Western Europe.

May I suggest you find out how much that costs before declaring it makes 'economic financial sense' *-)

 

Well we are housing many of Eastern Europe's lowlife, another EU open borders bonus *-) ........

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2016-12-23 10:29 PM

 

pelmetman - 2016-12-23 5:34 PM

remarkably low, so a few more prisons would not only be justified for locking up more low life, but make economic financial sense to me ;-) .......

Your 'remarkably low' is the highest in Western Europe.

May I suggest you find out how much that costs before declaring it makes 'economic financial sense' *-)

 

Once you add in the costs of our revolving door justice system, I'm prepared to bet keeping the scroat in prison for the full sentence rather than letting them out after doing half or less, would cost society far less than their incarceration cost ;-) ..........

 

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

The question that needs to be asked is whether prison (or capital punishment, for that matter) has ever worked.

 

In the sense that it removes the perpetrator from normal society for a while (or permanently in the case of capital punishment) it could be (is! :-)) argued that it is effective, but surely only for that person for the duration of their sentence.

 

The often claimed deterrent factor seems to me highly questionable. What crime was ever prevented by the prospect of harsh prison conditions or long sentences?

 

The evidence of history is that the criminal either makes a calculation on whether the return validates the risk, or is too foolish to make the calculation and commits the crime regardless.

 

Recidivism rates point to prison as a punishment being relatively ineffective. Current evidence is that those who get sent to prison, for whatever period, for whatever crime, tend to be those who continue committing crimes after their release, and end up back in prison as a consequence. Possibly the idea that they have "paid their dues" in prison, and wiped their slate clean, is at fault.

 

So, should sentences be increased on a sliding scale for repeat offenders, so that the first sentence is relatively light, the second heavier, the third heavier again, and so on until they reach the stage at which they will die in prison if they offend again? Would the clarity of that sort of regime penetrate some of the less receptive minds, and make them think again about their life prospects?

 

Otherwise, should we consider the point of prison to be rehabilitation rather than punishment, and make release dependent on an assessment of the individual's state of mind, rather than on the expiry date of an arbitrary term of imprisonment set by a court? Just musing! :-D

[StuartO]

The liberal idea is that rehabilitation is so important part of putting people in prison (to help them avoid reoffending on release) that it must have a very high priority.  I've never really bought that idea not least because if you are only sending people to prison as a last resort and for the minimum period because of the costs, the scope for genuine rehabilitation is lost because imprisonment is too little and too late to achieve anything other than token benefit. 

 

I've heard it said that by the time we send people to prison for the first time their criminal inclination is firmly established and almost all will re-offend because their personal die is cast as well as because (as ex-prisoners) they face extra challenges going straight.  There are some successful rehabilitation programmes, such as the one involving training prisoners as scaffolders while still inside and (cricially) also reserving a job for them immediately on release, but I don't believe rehabilitation is successful overall.

 

I do believe the imprisonment has useful deterent effect on many prisoners because very few are likely to want to go back inside but unless imprisonment is prompt and for long enough to be effective, the dterent value is undermined. 

 

I believe capital punishment also had a powerful deterent effect too - prisons went very quiet on the mornings when the prisoners knew that an imate was actually due to be executed. (But I don't believe in capital punishment for other reasons.)

 

Overall I think we spoil the effect of imprisonment by administering to late and too little to have the necessary impact.  I would abandon any attempt at rehabilitation during service of a prison sentence and make the life as tough as possible.  Why for example does feeding prisoners get five times the budget of feeding hospital patients?  Why do prisoners get entertained in prison?  Why do prisoners automatically get their sentence halved or reduced even further?  What they are sentenced to they should serve in full.

 

But I would however provide, for all prisoners on completion of their sentence, a compulsory residential rehabilitation course which teaches them what they need to know to re-enter society and behave - and give them a realsitic chance of getting a job and affordable accommodation.