Harrism

Is there anyway of removing human rights from prisoniers?

I'm quite curious on this; the way I see things, life should be life and 10 years should be 10 years. Regardless of good behaviour, they committed the crime they should be made to live it off. I do agree on appeals because some people can be entirely innocent but the way the system seems constructed it just seems idiotic. You enter you come out you re-steal you land up back inside. You enter, come out cannot cope with normal life you re-steal TO enter.

Can't we just give them massive amounts of hard major labour to do instead. Their a unclassified workforce, most of them are probably drug addicts it'll do them good. Ok it'll be hard and they're all bound to complain, but why the **** should prison be a life of fun?

I'll tell you what, If I went out and committed a crime, the way things stand the way public opinion would see it, I would just laugh it off I wouldn't see the hardship involved. In fact I'd just feel like I went to a holiday camp for 5 years getting to know a few friends. I would really treat it as a joke.

Can't we do something about this?

Don't bother trying to give them jobs at the end of it, their free of all that physical hardwork and those foul mouthing strict prison officers. That should be enough. Would you or could you imagine anyone wanting to return to such a life? Your off drugs and I mean your off drugs, you've been made to work your b*ollocks off. What would you prefer when you got out? Freedom or Prison? Maybe you'd be used to it so you'd want a job doing the same but you want to improve your lifestyle instead.

Why just not employ a few army officer's to run a couple of prisons, use their recruitment drills and treat them all as if they were in the army. Why not, employers are activity seeking those who have joined the army, your trained disaplined. So why not forcefully put someone in prison though the same regiment, it might even help them getting a better standing job. Companies aren't interested if you've been locked up. So why not make them appeal?

C_steam

Take some time out and read Archer's prison trilogy. Even if 50% isn't true, it opens ones eyes to what a **** prison system we have got.

As for hard labour and 10 years means 10 years, not to mention "Don't bother trying to give them jobs at the end of it" - then I presume 'your' system is meant to only punish. In other words, after 10 years of hard labour the prisoners are released harder, fitter, more bitter and more informed on how to break the law - by their peers - and are in no way better suited to join in society than they were when they went in.

It's the way to go to build a complete criminal underclass!

Harrism

So whats better, they sit inside a single cell and play tekken 3 all day? or get out and are forced to work. Tell me if Im wrong but isn't that what society is all about? Getting a decent job and working?

The way I see it the underclass is already there, if they all come out displined at least they stand a good chance of remaking half a decent life for themselves once their outside.

C_steam

absolutely. That is why you need to work hard to educate the prisoner both educationally and morally and give them skills to be able to take a full place in society upon their release.

I also note that you have edited out your comment So congratulations - you have now arrived at exactly where politicians of recent years have arrived - Like them, you can't decide either whether prisons should punish or rehabilitate.

mkpdavies

They should punish and if the criminal is coming out, then rehabilitate.

Part of that rehab is the prisoner should look back on his time in prison and think, never again.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Bluemerle

We should have a Bad Lad's Army similar to that shown on ITV recently. It was very successful, except for one or two who will never be reformed. A number of them joined the regular army because they like the discipline. that is the problem today, kids do not know the boundaries.

mkpdavies

I agree. Bring on the Boot camps!

BTW, human rights is not an evil term. It has been hijacked though and it's name dragged throug the pc mud.

Personaly I believe human rights should be the following for prisoners.

1) Freedom from torture.
2) Provision of the opportunty for food, water and reasonable lodgings.
3) Some time for relaxing.
4) A reasonable living enviroment, if they keep it reasonable.
5) A real rehab program both long term and intensively so just before release. (I would put them in a seperate facility for this, more in tune with helping them in secure conditions).

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Harrism

If you just said this doesn't that alone mean prison isn't harsh enough? If it was truely a bad time then this wouldn't even need to take place.

I'm gonna have to say kid's know the boundaries they just know they can break them. Why treat them like they're stupid? Everyone knows the law. Under 18's just need to be brought to terms with it.

Ok first one agreed.

But I really disagree on the rehab part; that just seemingly means something is wrong within the sentencing service, it just seems a waste of money.

Everything can be reasonable but they ain't there to relax and use it as a way to get out of life.

SGK

I don't believe in prison as punishment because I believe there are too many instances where you simply can't equate the crime to a just sentence. It also leads down the path of not imprisoning people, because you develop the thinking 'Mr A got 10 years for rape, this kid nicked a pair of jeans, I can't send him to the same prison, even for a week.'

I don't believe the state should attempt specific, compulsory rehab programmes for prisoners because 1) these people are often anti-establishment and therefore will fight against imposed rehab, forcing them further from society and 2) it can lead very quickly to a situation that the public are unhappy with, where kids especially are given a huge amount of help and attention - more so than those who have not committed crimes - and victims begin to feel that there is no justice.

I see incarceration in a much more straightforward way; someone who has shown that he is harmful to society is removed from society. The length of time that he is removed corresponds to the harm he has done, a balancing of the crime against the loss of freedom. It's as simple as that for me. Parole conflicts with this idea; if someone has been told he has to spend 20 years removed from society because of how he has harmed society then his behaviour in prison plays no role in the situation.
Nothing can change what he has done nor the damage caused and therefore the sentence cannot be reduced by any subsequent act.

I believe that a period of preparation before a prisoner leaves is correct, simply because if we believe ourselves to be protecting society then we have a duty to all members of society, and that includes ex-convicts. It's pointless to pretend that they don't need help re-integrating. More importantly is that there should be a voluntary help and work scheme for prisoners once they come out so that they can get back INTO phpbb_the swing of things and are not left out in the cold.

Simplistic, perhaps, but people have been trying to rehab people for decades and it hasn't worked. We would need more prisons and we would need to get rid of the judges that do not sentence criminals to custodial sentences - or at least they have to change their way of thinking. Parole has to go.
I believe forced labour is morally wrong and I believe all prison sentences, i.e. withdrawal of the basic human right of freedom, can only come after trial by jury.

(Under my logic, Blair would get about 500 years :? )

Harrism

I fully agree with you, you see my exact points.

Why not get them INTO phpbb_a trade? You spend 10 years inside or removed from society, 6 months after in preperation learning something you can give on the outside, and after all that indoor time your free. The 6 - 10 months after in learning a trade shouldn't be a problem, if they ARE correctly disaplined in a prison and honestly find it a harsh way of life. Everything has to be strict and standing right up to the law. People have their freedom to bend the law on the outside.

In which case they'd need to be a different set of rules and punishments when inside prison. Only a strict law applys to them and the only difference between the inside and outside is how relaxed the law is. The stricter it is in prison the more relaxed it can be on the outside, simply because people know their boundaries.

I do agree, I do see parole as a bad thing, but I'm probably only taking a one sided stand.

You know if we want to stand up theres only one way of doing it. Bring back the 10 commandments. The buddah's, the muslims the jews every religion besides satanic groups would never object to such thought. Your standing upto the law because God said so. And to an atheist your doing it because your religious and these rules are some of the most sensible laws made down in history. I can't see anyone objecting to that.

Muslims and Jews Christians, all worship the same commandments. Buddah's would agree they are sensible and athesis's wouldn't be able to do anything but agree. They made society strong in the past why not again? A politians life is merely to guide the people INTO phpbb_keeping these laws. You can't pee on a lorry on the side of the motoway unless the engine is on because this is indecent exposure because we saw it as one this one of the commandments.

Judges should reflex this too, how severe is it and how many of these rules could have possibily been broken and the sentence applied. The judges choose the law the politians merely decide who should be facing a trial. (Is this how it already works, because this seems pretty sensible - no-one gets too much power)