Nor way! Where convicts lead the good life.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by gtrietsc

It seems to me there is a disconnect in what we even argue about.

Do I think that someone who commits petty theft can be rehabbed? Sure. There are criminals for which rehab is definitely an option - and getting educated is a good way to make them into productive people.

The people I reserve harsher punishments for are the derelicts of society. I am talking about your hardened POS gang bangers, drug kingpins, serial killers, serial rapists, etc.

With Norway having just a population only 1.54% the size of the US, not to mention the different racial, economic, and geographical makeup of your country, I am sure you don't have the same number or types of criminals we do.

Let me ask you - just because taking some Tylenol will relieve your headache, is that also enough treatment for a stab wound? Think about it.

Serial killers, serial rapists and drug kingpins shouldn't get that sort of preferential treatment. But that is the extreme minority, and it would seem to me that there's a belief in harsh punishment for most crimes in the US of A. What the hell is third strike about? Mandatory minimum punishments? That's not going to work.

The criminal climate, the number of criminals and the type of crime is different here, but we both have the street mugger, we both have the violent juviniles, we both have the murders in affect, we have the same guys who buy and sell heroin and so on. Murder is the worst crime, it's worse than rape, to quote one of the guys in The Thin Red Line. But most murders are done in affect. The ugly truth is that you can rehabilitiate most murderers. And muggers who kill people became muggers for a reason. Someone who shoplifts shoplifts for a reason.

You ask me if the Tylenol will relieve a stab wound. It won't. That's completely beside the point. If one is to bring the stab wound into the equation, the question would be, is it better to treath a stab wound, or is it better to prevent the stabber from stabbing?

And I'm not talking about giving the victim a gun, I'm sure that will be one of your sollutions. My sollution involve more in the way of removing the causes that lead to someone stabbing someone else, be it a better safety net to grab those with psychological illnesses, a better economy, social reforms for instance. That's what works in the long run. Putting more and more people in jail does not work.

[Steve Levin]

Nothing here implies that "kindler, gentler" actually works. Does someone have recidivism rates to compare with?

Just pointing to lower crime rates simply demonstrates that Norway has a far more homogeneous environment than the United States.

One of the core concepts of punishment is not just rehabilitation. It is to act as a deterrent from committing the crime in the first place.

Steve

[nomix]

You really think it does not help trying to get people into jobs, rather than stigmatising them as "damn, blasted criminals"?

The deterrent factor is a factor, which is weird as it has never seemed to work ever in the history of man!

[thevictor390]

What you're saying is it works because you think it should work (I kind of agree with that). What we're asking is to show us something that says "hey look, these numbers show that it actually did work."

[nomix]

Have a look at the Criminon.org sites statistics.

"Of the 267 juveniles who had completed the Criminon New Life Program in Pretoria, South Africa, only 16 have returned to crime and the criminal justice system—a 6% recidivism rate."

For the record, South Africa has a major, major problem with street crime.

And why is it that we never get to see any proof that the death penalty works? Cause if it doesn't, get rid of it. Why is there no proof that harsher penalties work? Cause if it don't, what's the point of it?

Never in the history of the human race has harsh punishment been a preventive measure against crime. It's really time to think differently.

Oh, and that's before we're getting into social reforms and bettering social conditions meaning less crime, ask any sociology professor, he'll tell you the same..

[tigger]

Originally Posted by Steve Levin

Nothing here implies that "kindler, gentler" actually works. Does someone have recidivism rates to compare with?

From various sources I found (I just google searched), Norway has a recidivism rate just under 50%. In the US it is around 65%.

Programs like this have been tried in the US on a small scale. I found a NCJRS report (from 1989) on Oregon's "Cornerstone" program. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publication...aspx?ID=122282

The annotation for the report states:

To date, the most effective treatment programs with addicted offenders have consisted of intensive, moderate-term programs designed as modified therapeutic communities. This article presents a followup study on reduction of criminal recidivism by inmates treated in the Cornerstone Program in Oregon.

In respect to recidivism they found that 75% of those who dropped out of the program were back in jail within 3 years. But only 29% of those who completed the program became repeat offenders.

If harsh punishment was really a deterrent people would have stopped committing crimes a long time ago. I'm not saying it's no deterrent, but like nomix said, maybe it's time to rethink our strategy.

[gtrietsc]

Originally Posted by nomix

Have a look at the Criminon.org sites statistics.

"Of the 267 juveniles who had completed the Criminon New Life Program in Pretoria, South Africa, only 16 have returned to crime and the criminal justice system—a 6% recidivism rate."

Just curious - do people put through the Criminom program get their own e-meter?

http://www.criminon.org/about-us/l-ron-hubbard.php

And why is it that we never get to see any proof that the death penalty works? Cause if it doesn't, get rid of it. Why is there no proof that harsher penalties work? Cause if it don't, what's the point of it?

This story on cnn.com the other day talked about how expensive it is to have the death penalty. It had this nugget of good info in it:

In states with the death penalty, the average county obtained sentences of at least 20 years in almost 51 percent of cases in which the defendant was charged with murder and convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter. Those sentences were reached through a guilty plea in about 19 percent of the cases.

In states without the death penalty, sentences of at least 20 years were obtained in 40 percent of those cases, but only 5 percent were guilty pleas, about one-quarter of the number in the death penalty states.

So, while it is wildly expensive, it obviously is very much a deterrent to people if they are making pleas to avoid it.

As far as your question as to the point of the three strikes laws - that is for us, the non-criminals. If you screw up 3 times, you obviously cannot learn your lesson and need to be kept away from productive members of society. (And yes, if you commit a crime, you are a criminal. Don't like the stigma? Don't commit a crime!)

Never in the history of the human race has harsh punishment been a preventive measure against crime. It's really time to think differently.

Really? Never? I wonder how no one has realized that until now. Or you could be wrong. See above. Just sayin'.

Oh, and that's before we're getting into social reforms and bettering social conditions meaning less crime, ask any sociology professor, he'll tell you the same..

Well, sure. If I give all my crap away to those that don't have any, they will have some stuff, I wont have enough to steal, and it will be a utopia...

[nomix]

Originally Posted by gtrietsc

Just curious - do people put through the Criminom program get their own e-meter?

http://www.criminon.org/about-us/l-ron-hubbard.php

I don't think so.

This story on cnn.com the other day talked about how expensive it is to have the death penalty. It had this nugget of good info in it:

In states with the death penalty, the average county obtained sentences of at least 20 years in almost 51 percent of cases in which the defendant was charged with murder and convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter. Those sentences were reached through a guilty plea in about 19 percent of the cases.

In states without the death penalty, sentences of at least 20 years were obtained in 40 percent of those cases, but only 5 percent were guilty pleas, about one-quarter of the number in the death penalty states.

So, while it is wildly expensive, it obviously is very much a deterrent to people if they are making pleas to avoid it.

That it's an incentive for people to plea guilty is not an argument for harsher punishment, nor for the death penalty. No matter how you look at it, you are innocent until proven guilty, and using the fear of harsh punishment to push through a guilty plea might just leave us with a few more innocent people in jail.

If it was preventive, they wouldn't have commited the crime in the first place.

As far as your question as to the point of the three strikes laws - that is for us, the non-criminals. If you screw up 3 times, you obviously cannot learn your lesson and need to be kept away from productive members of society. (And yes, if you commit a crime, you are a criminal. Don't like the stigma? Don't commit a crime!)

If you screw up three times, there's probably a reason for it. Not to mention that putting people in jail for a long time for mediocre crimes is just wrong.

I don't care if you stole shit three times, it does not warrant a really, really long sentence. That's an idiotic system.

Really? Never? I wonder how no one has realized that until now. Or you could be wrong. See above. Just sayin'.

What are you on about? That doesn't prevent crime, it pushes people to confess their crime, that is not about preventing crime. If the goal is to prevent crime, it should be pretty obvious that the punishment should lead to mass numbers of people not doing the crime, which really doesn't seem to have happened at any time in history. Perhaps if you chop off peoples hands or stuff like that, but I'm sure you're not in favor of chopping peoples hands off with a sword.

Well, sure. If I give all my crap away to those that don't have any, they will have some stuff, I wont have enough to steal, and it will be a utopia...

Oh, give me a break. What about your money going to the cops, who police your streets? What about your money going to the army, the navy, the airforce, who protect your borders, your coast lines, your airspace? What about your money going to the fire departments of America, climbing up skyskrapers that's falling down and putting out fires?!

What about your beloved tax dollars going to lock up millions of people?!

We are talking about preventing crime. You can stick your head in the sand, you can talk about small government, but then you have to get your head around the fact that bad social conditions, unemployment, poverty and a bunch of different shit don't just lead to more crime. It makes crime grow. It's like a crime greenhouse. It's like having acres of fields growing criminals.

You wanna be hard on crime? You help those less fortunate than you. If that gives people better social conditions and more jobs, you get less crime!

[gtrietsc]

Here is what drives me crazy talking to you. You make blanket statements like these:

Originally Posted by nomix

If it was preventive, they wouldn't have commited the crime in the first place.

If you screw up three times, there's probably a reason for it. Not to mention that putting people in jail for a long time for mediocre crimes is just wrong.

I don't care if you stole shit three times, it does not warrant a really, really long sentence. That's an idiotic system.

That first statement makes it sound like the motivator for every crime is the same. Obviously, that isn't correct.

The second statement - the reason could be that you are a piece of shit criminal. Repeatedly. I honestly don't get the love for repeat offenders. Once again, its society's fault you are a criminal, not yours. And for mediocre crimes - those only count as a third strike if you already have committed serious felonies. So if you are a two time felon, would you really want to risk a long prison sentence to shoplift a bunch of stuff? If you do, WHY?

And the third - like I said, three strikes keeps these damaging elements of society away where they can't hurt the rest of us. Its as much protection for us as punishment for them. Maybe you would like a repeat criminal to share a bedroom with you - maybe it is different in Norway. But I go to work, I pay my taxes, I pay for things I want or need. No one *has* to be a criminal. Even if you are destitute, there are options. It is a choice.

[brydiem]

I think this is an excellent idea, not only for the fact it gives prisoners a chance to do some good and get some decent skills, but it also removes a lot of the social stigma assosciated with criminals. Over here, the main reason for recidivism rate is so high is because a) prisons are baiscally a factory for turning good people who did something wrong into hardened repeat offenders and teaching those who are already "proper criminals" better techniques for committing their crimes (If anybody has senn "Oz", it's like Beecher and how he became one of the worst crims in there), and b) there is such a negative stigma assosciated with people who have gone to jail that they often don't have anything else to do except commit more crimes (because they can't get a job, loans, any sort of help)

We have a pretty bad problem with our indigenous population being over-represented in prisons here- it's about 15% when they only make up about 3% of the population. They are trying an alternative punishment in some communities called "circle sentencing" where basically the elders of the community get the offender to face what he has done, talk to his victims and realise he needs help. It is working really well, with most of the people in the program not re-offending (I don't have the exact stats sorry, only saw the video in legal studies).

I've seen what prisons over here are like (both in videos and in person- school work, I assure you ) and it isn't pretty. Something like this for people who have been assessed as low-risk and unlikely to re-offend would really cut the recidivsim rate and in the long run probably save the state money. It's only public opinion that stops it.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by gtrietsc

If you do, WHY?

Addressing the "why" is the whole reason for these rehab programs. I don't see how you can argue with real cuts in recidivism.

Originally Posted by gtrietsc

Even if you are destitute, there are options. It is a choice.

Sure. And it's easy to say that when you've never been in that position.

[nomix]

That first statement makes it sound like the motivator for every crime is the same. Obviously, that isn't correct.

Of course it is not, but we were debating the idea that something could work as a preventive measure, and if something works as a preventive measure, it means people do not commit the crime.

You pulled out your example of how harsh punishment worked preventive, but in fact, you proved that despite the harsh punishment being up there, they commited the bloody crime.

The second statement - the reason could be that you are a piece of shit criminal. Repeatedly. I honestly don't get the love for repeat offenders. Once again, its society's fault you are a criminal, not yours. And for mediocre crimes - those only count as a third strike if you already have committed serious felonies. So if you are a two time felon, would you really want to risk a long prison sentence to shoplift a bunch of stuff? If you do, WHY?

I've bought illegal booz of friends who make it in their cellars, I've driven over the speed limit, I usually bring back a couple of extra units of tobacco every time I'm in Sweden and I drink in public.

But I'm not a pos criminal, I've never been in jail, and I'm planning to keep it that way.

Why do I say it is society's fault you're a criminal? BECAUSE IT IS!

Aight, that was a punchline, I just wanted it out there. But to be honest, it's not just society. It's not just the free mind, the individual.

There's two general directions of sociology, one goes towards society, the other towards the individual. As in almost everything, I'm of the belief it's part society, part individual.

Why would you? That's a good question. You're hungry? You're on drugs? You're messed up? I don't know. I guess your answer would be "evil"?

And after all, even with three strikes.. PEOPLE STILL COMMIT THE THIRD CRIME!

And the third - like I said, three strikes keeps these damaging elements of society away where they can't hurt the rest of us. Its as much protection for us as punishment for them. Maybe you would like a repeat criminal to share a bedroom with you - maybe it is different in Norway. But I go to work, I pay my taxes, I pay for things I want or need. No one *has* to be a criminal. Even if you are destitute, there are options. It is a choice.

What I would like is to go into the bloody reasons why people commit crimes. That is the only proven way of getting less crimes.

It's a choice, and it isn't. That's what makes me crazy with you fundamentalist guys. It's either this or that. It can't be a middle thing, ever.

It is your choice what you want to fund, but if you're putting your head into the sand and won't help those in bad situations.. you better be ready to spend ten times that on more cops. You're going to bloody need it.

[ahpadt]

Norwegian prisons = rest homes

[nomix]

They're not hell holes, so if you want prisons to be hell holes, factories of mental illness, then be my guest.

[gtrietsc]

Originally Posted by nomix

That's what makes me crazy with you fundamentalist guys. It's either this or that. It can't be a middle thing, ever.

That's choice - since according to you, *your* way of delivering justice is the only right way. Since you don't have 3 strikes laws, etc - those must just be crazy things that don't work, ever. Because Norway is exactly like the US. You have to understand that I view your rest home prisons with the same cynical eye you give to - well, all of our justice system, I guess. I can tell you this though - if someone planned in advance and then murdered one of my family members, and the most their sentence could be was 21 years in tennis-prison, I would lose my shit. To intentionally plan to deny someone living out their natural life and only 21 years? Max? That is unjust.

P.S. - maybe you just used the wrong word, I dunno - but I never been called a fundamentalist. It weakens my view of you to do so. I find that kind of offensive, since I am nothing of the sort. I have not called you anything.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by gtrietsc

That's choice - since according to you, *your* way of delivering justice is the only right way. Since you don't have 3 strikes laws, etc - those must just be crazy things that don't work, ever. Because Norway is exactly like the US. You have to understand that I view your rest home prisons with the same cynical eye you give to - well, all of our justice system, I guess. I can tell you this though - if someone planned in advance and then murdered one of my family members, and the most their sentence could be was 21 years in tennis-prison, I would lose my shit. To intentionally plan to deny someone living out their natural life and only 21 years? Max? That is unjust.

You don't think I know that? Of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't be for the system you've got, that's obvious.

First of all, it's not tennis-prison for 21 years, it's something that's possible if the guy proves he can behave, and it's in preperation for leaving prison. It's not perfect, but it's what it is. Furthermore, for the most sinister criminals, we have the possibility to keep people in something called "forvaring", which means they can be condemned by the court to remain in custody (possibly) indefinatly. So it's not like there's not options.

I'll list my problems with some parts of your system.

- Mandatory minimums. They are silly. Each individual deserves their case tried on their cases individual merits. And if we don't let judges work their magic, what's the point of having them in the first place?

- Third strike. I don't care if it's wrong to steal, giving someone a ridiculously long prisonterm for stealing a pair of snookers, a bag of potato crisps and a car is.. not that good. It's just unproportionate.

- The death penalty. It's never been proven to be an effective deterrent, and it's to unsafe, in the way it is proven to actively kill innocent people.

Now, I can understand your argument referring to someone killing one of your family members, but I will again refer you to the quote of John Adams about the law;

"On the one hand it [the law] is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder, to the clamors of the populace."

The victim, or the victim's family can't have any place in deciding the punishment. Justice isn't about personal revenge, it is about fair, proportionate retrobution.

P.S. - maybe you just used the wrong word, I dunno - but I never been called a fundamentalist. It weakens my view of you to do so. I find that kind of offensive, since I am nothing of the sort. I have not called you anything.

That was a poor language from my side. I get a little hot headed from time to time (for instance, I once called someone a "blood thursty slaughter" back in the old days of the internet, which was very sinister and unkind on my part).

[BTM5]

its the same here

you rape a girl thats 3 years or so in a luxury prison

you fake a krona...currency thats 8 years in a luxury prison

oh and may I add. there is a 3 year waiting list to those luxurious prisons cause they're all full

[nomix]

Define 'luxury prison'.

Would you really like to spend some time in one?

[BTM5]

Originally Posted by nomix

Define 'luxury prison'.

Would you really like to spend some time in one?

well, they get to roam free all day long in the prison, there is a store in the prison for the convicts, they get free internet, theyre allowed to use cellphones, there is a garage...workshop...whatever, and a whole lot more

[nomix]

So you'd prefer they were in a black hole eating old, dry bread and drinking warm water?

The success of a society isn't measured by how hard it punishes its sinners.