Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hospitals vs Prisons -a classic example of petty prejudice amongst politicians
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Andy Wainwright
Oct 10, 2012, 5:31:36 PM10/10/12
to
Hospitals vs Prisons -a classic example of petty prejudice amongst
politicians
Imagine if when someone was sent to hospital for a typical illness, the
patient was told that they'd have to be in for a set period ranging from
a day to a year or so whether they got any better or not during that period.
With a few exceptions regarding mental health sections, how long a
patient stays in hospital depends purely on their rate of recovery.
Essentially, prisons are a type of hospital for the "morally ill"- those
whose behaviour represents either a danger to themselves or others or a
persistant nuisance to the public.
"Law and Order" politicians love talking about mandatory sentences.
Truth is, it isn't that they like law and order at all but simply their
personal power. The less flexibility that courts and parole boards have
over the punishment, the less the punishment can be tailored to the
specific correctional needs of the criminal. It is like saying to
doctors "if a patient has flue, they must stay in hospital for six
weeks, if they have a broken arm seven days" etc etc.
A prisoner who no longer poses a unnacceptable risk to the public is
just the same as a blocked bed in hospital- it means that the resources
are diverted from those who actually need the care. For instance, less
staff to inmates is going to mean more drug abuse, more sexual assault,
a greater chance of reoffence due to lack of rehabilitation and training.
politicians
Imagine if when someone was sent to hospital for a typical illness, the
patient was told that they'd have to be in for a set period ranging from
a day to a year or so whether they got any better or not during that period.
With a few exceptions regarding mental health sections, how long a
patient stays in hospital depends purely on their rate of recovery.
Essentially, prisons are a type of hospital for the "morally ill"- those
whose behaviour represents either a danger to themselves or others or a
persistant nuisance to the public.
"Law and Order" politicians love talking about mandatory sentences.
Truth is, it isn't that they like law and order at all but simply their
personal power. The less flexibility that courts and parole boards have
over the punishment, the less the punishment can be tailored to the
specific correctional needs of the criminal. It is like saying to
doctors "if a patient has flue, they must stay in hospital for six
weeks, if they have a broken arm seven days" etc etc.
A prisoner who no longer poses a unnacceptable risk to the public is
just the same as a blocked bed in hospital- it means that the resources
are diverted from those who actually need the care. For instance, less
staff to inmates is going to mean more drug abuse, more sexual assault,
a greater chance of reoffence due to lack of rehabilitation and training.
Brave New Britain
Oct 10, 2012, 5:39:11 PM10/10/12
to
--
Brave New Britain
Mel Rowing
Oct 10, 2012, 6:22:55 PM10/10/12
to
On Oct 10, 10:31 pm, Andy Wainwright
behaviour are not ill. They know full well what they do. They are very
deliberate in what they do and they know full well whether it is right
or wrong social or anti-social.
Prisons are not hospitals at all. They are institutions into which
society and the judiciary dump those with whom they despair for one
reason or another.
Most of them have long criminal records that stretch back into
childhood.
> A prisoner who no longer poses a unnacceptable risk to the public is
> just the same as a blocked bed in hospital- it means that the resources
> are diverted from those who actually need the care.
Most of them are social nuisances and the sooner they are released the
sooner they will be back inside again. Severe letting off is not
economic either. The cost of incaceration of say a habitual burglar
varies according to who you talk to but there will be consensus that
it amounts to £100s per week.
When one takes into account policing costs, court costs, loss of
property, damage to premises the cost to the community of a single
burglary is ~£2000
The average habitual burglar offends several times a week. The
release or incaceration of a single individual can affect local crime
rates by several percentage points.
In some cases it would make better commerical sense to keep
individuals locked up permananently.
<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Essentially, prisons are a type of hospital for the "morally ill"- those
> whose behaviour represents either a danger to themselves or others or a
> persistant nuisance to the public.
With the exception of the odd psychotic, those who engage in ciminal
> Essentially, prisons are a type of hospital for the "morally ill"- those
> whose behaviour represents either a danger to themselves or others or a
> persistant nuisance to the public.
behaviour are not ill. They know full well what they do. They are very
deliberate in what they do and they know full well whether it is right
or wrong social or anti-social.
Prisons are not hospitals at all. They are institutions into which
society and the judiciary dump those with whom they despair for one
reason or another.
Most of them have long criminal records that stretch back into
childhood.
> A prisoner who no longer poses a unnacceptable risk to the public is
> just the same as a blocked bed in hospital- it means that the resources
> are diverted from those who actually need the care.
sooner they will be back inside again. Severe letting off is not
economic either. The cost of incaceration of say a habitual burglar
varies according to who you talk to but there will be consensus that
it amounts to £100s per week.
When one takes into account policing costs, court costs, loss of
property, damage to premises the cost to the community of a single
burglary is ~£2000
The average habitual burglar offends several times a week. The
release or incaceration of a single individual can affect local crime
rates by several percentage points.
In some cases it would make better commerical sense to keep
individuals locked up permananently.
Andy Wainwright
Oct 10, 2012, 6:35:50 PM10/10/12
to
any means the worst offenders, ditto mental hospitals the biggest nutters.
What you will find is largely poor and uneducated people. Those with the
brains and the cash don't get caught.
Joe
Oct 11, 2012, 3:58:57 AM10/11/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:31:36 +0100
Andy Wainwright <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>.... the punishment can be tailored to the specific correctional needs
>of the criminal.
Prisons exist to separate criminals from their prey, for as long as can
be afforded. Any additional benefits they may provide (e.g. deterrence)
are incidental.
Years, many of them, *may* reform criminals just as they change
everybody, but nothing else does.
--
Joe
Nigel Oldfield
Oct 11, 2012, 4:12:47 AM10/11/12
to
On 11/10/2012 08:58, Joe wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:31:36 +0100
> Andy Wainwright <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> .... the punishment can be tailored to the specific correctional needs
>> of the criminal.
>
> Prisons exist to separate criminals from their prey,
Oh dear.
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:31:36 +0100
> Andy Wainwright <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> .... the punishment can be tailored to the specific correctional needs
>> of the criminal.
>
> Prisons exist to separate criminals from their prey,
WM
The Todal
Oct 11, 2012, 4:14:42 AM10/11/12
to
about prisoners as if they were all one species. Many are the product
of their upbringing - unloved by anyone, bullied at school or by gangs,
they take what seems the quickest and easiest way to make money for
themselves and quickly fall foul of the law. I have no sympathy for such
people (I would have some sympathy if we still lived in times when the
punishment would be branding or the amputation of a limb or death) but
we shouldn't regard them as people who have deliberately chosen to be
evil when they had the opportunity to be good. The remedy is to offer
them a better way of life, better for themeselves and better for society.
However I don't think you can ever say for sure that a prisoner has been
cured of his criminality the way a hospital patient can be cured of his
disease. What you can of course say is that by keeping a person in
prison for too long, you deprive him of the life skills he will need to
find and keep a job and a relationship on the outside, so he becomes
like a patient who is bed-bound.
Martin Brown
Oct 11, 2012, 4:38:44 AM10/11/12
to
On 10/10/2012 23:22, Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Oct 10, 10:31 pm, Andy Wainwright
> <andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Essentially, prisons are a type of hospital for the "morally ill"- those
>> whose behaviour represents either a danger to themselves or others or a
>> persistant nuisance to the public.
>
> With the exception of the odd psychotic, those who engage in ciminal
> behaviour are not ill. They know full well what they do. They are very
> deliberate in what they do and they know full well whether it is right
> or wrong social or anti-social.
That might be true for what are in effect professional criminals.
> <andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Essentially, prisons are a type of hospital for the "morally ill"- those
>> whose behaviour represents either a danger to themselves or others or a
>> persistant nuisance to the public.
>
> With the exception of the odd psychotic, those who engage in ciminal
> behaviour are not ill. They know full well what they do. They are very
> deliberate in what they do and they know full well whether it is right
> or wrong social or anti-social.
But there are a lot of offenders in the drunk and disorderly category
that are basically an artefact of the peculiar British attitude to
drinking alcohol. Friday and Saturday nights being highest risk.
Most of *them* seem to be quite normal useful citizens when sober!
How many of us break the speed limit? That is criminal behaviour.
> Prisons are not hospitals at all. They are institutions into which
> society and the judiciary dump those with whom they despair for one
> reason or another.
> Most of them have long criminal records that stretch back into
> childhood.
read or do simple maths. Teaching them these basic skills might go some
way to decreasing the frequency of reoffending. I think he has a point:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/23/ukcrime.furthereducation
The same also applies to making prisons drug free and providing
appropriate support to get addicts onto treatment programmes.
But the right wing always want to lock up as many people as possible and
throw away the key. Very expensive and pointless unless you make some
effort to prevent them from reoffending in the future.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Mel Rowing
Oct 11, 2012, 5:07:13 AM10/11/12
to
On Oct 10, 11:36 pm, Andy Wainwright
It's absolutely impossible to bake assertions regarding events and
situations that don't occur.
It may well be that those with the brains and the cash hve neither the
need nor the inclination to resort to criminality
situations that don't occur.
It may well be that those with the brains and the cash hve neither the
need nor the inclination to resort to criminality
The Todal
Oct 11, 2012, 5:18:34 AM10/11/12
to
On 11/10/12 10:07, Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Oct 10, 11:36 pm, Andy Wainwright
>>
> On Oct 10, 11:36 pm, Andy Wainwright
>>
>> It's worth noting that the criminals you'll find in the nick aren't by
>> any means the worst offenders, ditto mental hospitals the biggest nutters.
>>
>> What you will find is largely poor and uneducated people. Those with the
>> brains and the cash don't get caught.
>
> It's absolutely impossible to bake assertions regarding events and
> situations that don't occur.
>
> It may well be that those with the brains and the cash hve neither the
> need nor the inclination to resort to criminality
>
It is more likely that there is a vast amount of undetected crime. I am
>> any means the worst offenders, ditto mental hospitals the biggest nutters.
>>
>> What you will find is largely poor and uneducated people. Those with the
>> brains and the cash don't get caught.
>
> It's absolutely impossible to bake assertions regarding events and
> situations that don't occur.
>
> It may well be that those with the brains and the cash hve neither the
> need nor the inclination to resort to criminality
>
sure that for every parent in prison for battering their child there
must be a dozen still free to live with their family. The borderline
between supporting such families to help them change their behaviour and
prosecuting them to punish them for their actions tends to be a flexible
one. And as for financial crimes, there must be large numbers of
employees thieving or embezzling from their employer. Carers who steal
from the old or vulnerable whom they are supposed to be looking after.
Rich people evading tax by not declaring transactions. Officials taking
bribes in exchange for favours.
I really don't think that prisoners are very different from people who
live on the outside. They are just ordinary people, a cross-section of
society, but they have been unlucky enough to be detected committing a
criminal offence. I don't say that I approve of them. I just think that
by punishing them very severely and keeping them in prison, you do
little to address the underlying problem of criminality in society. Some
would say that if there was more religious faith, everyone would have
more moral scruples and would be better behaved. I don't believe that
for one moment, but I don't think kids in school are taught much about
morality and social responsibility and the need to care for the
vulnerable rather than exploit the vulnerable.
LebesgueMeasure
Oct 11, 2012, 5:23:50 AM10/11/12
to
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qAvds.9672$nQ6....@newsfe15.iad...
these prisons.
I suspect that the number of totally incorrigible prisoners, that will
reoffend whatever education or chances you give them, is probably a fairly
small proportion of the the total, and that the simple of expedient of
teaching them to read and do sums will probably be enough to turn many of
them around.
news:qAvds.9672$nQ6....@newsfe15.iad...
>
> But the right wing always want to lock up as many people as possible and
> throw away the key. Very expensive and pointless unless you make some
> effort to prevent them from reoffending in the future.
>
>
Though very profitable if you own shares in the companies that administer
> But the right wing always want to lock up as many people as possible and
> throw away the key. Very expensive and pointless unless you make some
> effort to prevent them from reoffending in the future.
>
>
these prisons.
I suspect that the number of totally incorrigible prisoners, that will
reoffend whatever education or chances you give them, is probably a fairly
small proportion of the the total, and that the simple of expedient of
teaching them to read and do sums will probably be enough to turn many of
them around.
Mentalguy2k8
Oct 11, 2012, 6:34:01 AM10/11/12
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k54t8f$n2i$1...@dont-email.me...
you'll have nightmares if you think there's worse walking the streets.....
Ophelia
Oct 11, 2012, 6:31:11 AM10/11/12
to
"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:210ed087-ca73-427e...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
The Todal
Oct 11, 2012, 6:57:04 AM10/11/12
to
On 11/10/12 11:31, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:210ed087-ca73-427e...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>
> "Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:210ed087-ca73-427e...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> In some cases it would make better commerical sense to keep
>> individuals locked up permananently.
>
> Or you could just shoot them and be done.
>
I don't suppose anyone would have minded if there had been summary
>> individuals locked up permananently.
>
> Or you could just shoot them and be done.
>
executions of Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken, Ernest Saunders, Neil
Hamilton, David Chaytor, Elliot Morley, Lord Hanningfield, Ali Dizaei.
But in all honesty I think it would have been a great shame if convicted
murderer Erwin James had been executed. He is a superb writer, a skill
which he acquired in prison and for which he is grateful to the
authorities because in his case, rehabilitation worked.
Student Loan Shark
Oct 11, 2012, 7:03:04 AM10/11/12
to
Student Loan Shark
Oct 11, 2012, 7:06:59 AM10/11/12
to
R. Mark Clayton
Oct 11, 2012, 7:07:19 AM10/11/12
to
Bizarre analysis.
If you fall of a ladder and break your leg then you will be released from
hospital as soon as you are fit enough to go home. Unless you are Eddie
Kidd, you will probably try very hard not to do it again.
If you break my leg with a sledge-hammer then you may well be sick, but you
need to be punished and kept away from society for a proportionate time
(potentially until till death if you murder someone) in case you do it
again, which the likelihood is you will want to.
I agree about mandatory sentences, and the UK has few of these - murder, XXX
driving and illegal possession of weapons.
news:k54pg1$n6$1...@dont-email.me...
If you fall of a ladder and break your leg then you will be released from
hospital as soon as you are fit enough to go home. Unless you are Eddie
Kidd, you will probably try very hard not to do it again.
If you break my leg with a sledge-hammer then you may well be sick, but you
need to be punished and kept away from society for a proportionate time
(potentially until till death if you murder someone) in case you do it
again, which the likelihood is you will want to.
I agree about mandatory sentences, and the UK has few of these - murder, XXX
driving and illegal possession of weapons.
news:k54pg1$n6$1...@dont-email.me...
Student Loan Shark
Oct 11, 2012, 7:10:40 AM10/11/12
to
Ophelia
Oct 11, 2012, 7:12:15 AM10/11/12
to
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:adnn01...@mid.individual.net...
--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Andy Wainwright
Oct 11, 2012, 10:57:48 AM10/11/12
to
funeral.
Mentalguy2k8
Oct 11, 2012, 11:00:54 AM10/11/12
to
news:k56mpn$2cq$1...@dont-email.me...
I don't know anyone who has eaten babies and got a state funeral. Maybe
you'll be seeing the inside of a secure ward sooner than you think...
you'll be seeing the inside of a secure ward sooner than you think...
Andy Wainwright
Oct 11, 2012, 11:12:42 AM10/11/12
to
Harold Shipman gave themselves up. A lot of the most successful and
prolific murderers deliberately commit their final offences so they will
be caught, whether out of conscience or simply attention seeking.
However, read through their lives and to friends and neighbours these
were often superficially respectable.
Fred West was even dubbed "the man who never stops working". Like
Saville, were he to have chosen to take his secrets to the grave he
probably could have.
From serial killers to common fences and drug smugglers, the law as it
typically stands tends to simply weed out the weaker, and ironically
less dangerous, players.
For instance, there's only so much of a customers officer's time to
spend looking for those importing illegal material- when things get
crowded, people have to be waved through barriers and they know it. When
a "patsy" is set up, often a vulnerable person, police get a conviction,
major criminal escapes justice- a win win deal for both cop and
professional criminal.
There are many successful criminals who are very rich and powerful and
yet have never seen the dock even on a minor offence. Gary Glitter had
drunk his lawyer's fees and that's why they could nick him.
Mel Rowing
Oct 11, 2012, 11:50:13 AM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 9:38 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> > wrong, social or anti-social.
likely to spend the remainder of a saturday night sobering up in a
police station cell before being kicked out the next morning without
charge. Where a drunken episode does end up in court the sentence is
likely to be non custodial in nature.
This is not to say that more serious criminals who do find themsleves
in prison do not have alcohol and problems. Many do but generally
speaking they are inside for more serious reasons.
In fact it does take a certain degree of dedication to get oneself
sent to prison. It's seen as a costly soluion o a social problem. One
who ought to know once told me that in preparing papers for the CPS he
happened to notice that an offender had been before a court on no
fewer than 157 previous occasions for similar offences. During the
whole of that time with the exception of the odd occasion spent in
police custody he had not spent a single night in prison. On this
occasion he was susequently sentenced to 4 months imprisonment. No
doubt the saga still goes on.
> Most of *them* seem to be quite normal useful citizens when sober!
Inmates from prison don't! They come from that section of society that
could not stay out of trouble for long even if their lives dependent
upon on it. Their lives have been a succession of truancies and
eventual exclusion from school. In and out of one insitution after
another all with no effect. Then, a lot of them give it all up. They
grow out of it for whatever reason.
> How many of us break the speed limit? That is criminal behaviour.
it's not property crime and because of that it is seen as victimless
and thus more acceptable and more condoable. However, if your driving
is deemed to have caused injury particularly fatal injury,
particularly to a child then expect the worst.
I remember reading a heart rendering letter to newspaper some years
ago. The letter related to her brother in law who had been happily
married, devoted to two children,buying his own house, good job,
excellent prospects. Everything was going swimmingly until he had the
mis-fortune to knock over and kill a child on a pedestrian crossing.
He was held accountable and subsequently sentenced to 3 years
imprisonment by the Crown Court.
He didn't take to prison very well and came out an antisocial,
homosexual totally dishonestdrug addict . He never went near his
previous employer who had kept his job open for him. The marriage
broke up as a consequence, he left and had not been seen since.
The lady went on to say that the family understood that their member
had been silly and had to be punished for the terrible act he had,
allbeit unwittingly, committed. but asked whether society could not
deal with such situations more imaginatively. Quite! one can feel for
them/
> And as Jeffrey Archer pointed out a worrying proportion of them cannot
> read or do simple maths. Teaching them these basic skills might go some
> way to decreasing the frequency of reoffending. I think he has a point:
Done it! Got the T-shirt! 4 years of it part time. Either my teaching
skills were inadequate or I had been blessed with the thickest of the
thick. They didn't want to know. Mind you things might have been a
teeny weeny bit better if I had been allowed to keep them more than 5
or 6 weeks on average. After that they'd moved onto another
instituion, been released, wanted to do something else etc. etc. The
education was not allowed to get in the way of the efficient operation
of the prison service.
wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 23:22, Mel Rowing wrote:
> > With the exception of the odd psychopath, those who engage in ciminal
> > behaviour are not ill. They know full well what they do. They are very
> > deliberate in what they do and they know full well whether it is right,
> > wrong, social or anti-social.
>
> That might be true for what are in effect professional criminals.
>
> But there are a lot of offenders in the drunk and disorderly category
> that are basically an artefact of the peculiar British attitude to
> drinking alcohol. Friday and Saturday nights being highest risk.
Perpetual drunks are unlikely to find themselves in prison being more
> That might be true for what are in effect professional criminals.
>
> But there are a lot of offenders in the drunk and disorderly category
> that are basically an artefact of the peculiar British attitude to
> drinking alcohol. Friday and Saturday nights being highest risk.
likely to spend the remainder of a saturday night sobering up in a
police station cell before being kicked out the next morning without
charge. Where a drunken episode does end up in court the sentence is
likely to be non custodial in nature.
This is not to say that more serious criminals who do find themsleves
in prison do not have alcohol and problems. Many do but generally
speaking they are inside for more serious reasons.
In fact it does take a certain degree of dedication to get oneself
sent to prison. It's seen as a costly soluion o a social problem. One
who ought to know once told me that in preparing papers for the CPS he
happened to notice that an offender had been before a court on no
fewer than 157 previous occasions for similar offences. During the
whole of that time with the exception of the odd occasion spent in
police custody he had not spent a single night in prison. On this
occasion he was susequently sentenced to 4 months imprisonment. No
doubt the saga still goes on.
> Most of *them* seem to be quite normal useful citizens when sober!
could not stay out of trouble for long even if their lives dependent
upon on it. Their lives have been a succession of truancies and
eventual exclusion from school. In and out of one insitution after
another all with no effect. Then, a lot of them give it all up. They
grow out of it for whatever reason.
> How many of us break the speed limit? That is criminal behaviour.
and thus more acceptable and more condoable. However, if your driving
is deemed to have caused injury particularly fatal injury,
particularly to a child then expect the worst.
I remember reading a heart rendering letter to newspaper some years
ago. The letter related to her brother in law who had been happily
married, devoted to two children,buying his own house, good job,
excellent prospects. Everything was going swimmingly until he had the
mis-fortune to knock over and kill a child on a pedestrian crossing.
He was held accountable and subsequently sentenced to 3 years
imprisonment by the Crown Court.
He didn't take to prison very well and came out an antisocial,
homosexual totally dishonestdrug addict . He never went near his
previous employer who had kept his job open for him. The marriage
broke up as a consequence, he left and had not been seen since.
The lady went on to say that the family understood that their member
had been silly and had to be punished for the terrible act he had,
allbeit unwittingly, committed. but asked whether society could not
deal with such situations more imaginatively. Quite! one can feel for
them/
> And as Jeffrey Archer pointed out a worrying proportion of them cannot
> read or do simple maths. Teaching them these basic skills might go some
> way to decreasing the frequency of reoffending. I think he has a point:
skills were inadequate or I had been blessed with the thickest of the
thick. They didn't want to know. Mind you things might have been a
teeny weeny bit better if I had been allowed to keep them more than 5
or 6 weeks on average. After that they'd moved onto another
instituion, been released, wanted to do something else etc. etc. The
education was not allowed to get in the way of the efficient operation
of the prison service.
Andy Wainwright
Oct 11, 2012, 12:01:40 PM10/11/12
to
politicans or royalty.
Andy Wainwright
Oct 11, 2012, 12:15:02 PM10/11/12
to
Mel Rowing
Oct 11, 2012, 1:57:17 PM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 11:44 am, "Ophelia" <Ophe...@elsinore.me.uk> wrote:
> "Mel Rowing" <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > In some cases it would make better commerical sense to keep
> > individuals locked up permananently.
>
> Or you could just shoot them and be done.
And once upon a day execution was sued more widely In the early 19th
century there were 200 crimes that attracted the death penaty and over
60 years 7000 executions were carried out. There would probably have
been many more but for the practice of transportation to the colonies
which was the fate of most who had their sentences commuted. This was
no soft option. The voyage was long and dangerous and the destinations
riddled with pestilance and hardship. Very few would see the UK and
their loved ones ever again.
However, we should not be so scornfully judgemental about the society
that administered such harsh punisments. Productivity of labour was
miserably low and even if wealth was concentrated in even fewer hands
than today there was not a great deal to go round. A new suit of
clothes could represent a year's wages of a labourer. Most people
never had new clothes or boots being obliged to buy hand me downs on
markets. It was not unsual for a man to bequeath a his boots in his
will.
Similarly a sheep was worth more than the shepherd who tended it.
> "Mel Rowing" <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > In some cases it would make better commerical sense to keep
> > individuals locked up permananently.
>
> Or you could just shoot them and be done.
century there were 200 crimes that attracted the death penaty and over
60 years 7000 executions were carried out. There would probably have
been many more but for the practice of transportation to the colonies
which was the fate of most who had their sentences commuted. This was
no soft option. The voyage was long and dangerous and the destinations
riddled with pestilance and hardship. Very few would see the UK and
their loved ones ever again.
However, we should not be so scornfully judgemental about the society
that administered such harsh punisments. Productivity of labour was
miserably low and even if wealth was concentrated in even fewer hands
than today there was not a great deal to go round. A new suit of
clothes could represent a year's wages of a labourer. Most people
never had new clothes or boots being obliged to buy hand me downs on
markets. It was not unsual for a man to bequeath a his boots in his
will.
Similarly a sheep was worth more than the shepherd who tended it.
Mel Rowing
Oct 11, 2012, 2:14:24 PM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 11:57 am, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> On 11/10/12 11:31, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mel Rowing" <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> On 11/10/12 11:31, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
>
agree with you?
He had committed "murder most foul" How does his crimes rank below
those you list above on the spectrum of seriousness?
Mel Rowing
Oct 11, 2012, 3:00:03 PM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 10:18 am, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> On 11/10/12 10:07, Mel Rowing wrote:
> > It may well be that those with the brains and the cash hve neither the
> > need nor the inclination to resort to criminality
>
> It is more likely that there is a vast amount of undetected crime. I am
> sure that for every parent in prison for battering their child there
> must be a dozen still free to live with their family. The borderline
> between supporting such families to help them change their behaviour and
> prosecuting them to punish them for their actions tends to be a flexible
> one. And as for financial crimes, there must be large numbers of
> employees thieving or embezzling from their employer. Carers who steal
> from the old or vulnerable whom they are supposed to be looking after.
> Rich people evading tax by not declaring transactions. Officials taking
> bribes in exchange for favours.
As a rule of thumb, the more serious the crime the more likely its
> On 11/10/12 10:07, Mel Rowing wrote:
> > It may well be that those with the brains and the cash hve neither the
> > need nor the inclination to resort to criminality
>
> It is more likely that there is a vast amount of undetected crime. I am
> sure that for every parent in prison for battering their child there
> must be a dozen still free to live with their family. The borderline
> between supporting such families to help them change their behaviour and
> prosecuting them to punish them for their actions tends to be a flexible
> one. And as for financial crimes, there must be large numbers of
> employees thieving or embezzling from their employer. Carers who steal
> from the old or vulnerable whom they are supposed to be looking after.
> Rich people evading tax by not declaring transactions. Officials taking
> bribes in exchange for favours.
detection. Hence detection rates for murder say are over 90% whilst
detection rates for larceny or vandalism will be <1% This reflects the
fact that a higher level of police resources are devoted towards the
solution of a serious crime whereas the others would hardly be
investigated at all. In short the result would not justify the cost.
If you had your flat sceen pinched tonight the best chance of you
getting it back would be if it came to light in the course of another
enquiry, Nobody would actively seek it.
So on the assumption that "posh criminals" would only be attracted
towards the most remunertive escapades where the reward justifies the
risk. these are the very crimes that provoke a more positive police
response and the chance of detected would be accordinly higher.
The truth is that up and down the country literally thousands of minor
crimes go undetected and most of these are committed by minor
criminals. It is these crimes that really do intrude upon everyday
life. It's these that turn communities into ghettos. It's these that
disturb the peace. It's these that make decent people prisoners in
their own homes.
Over and above that, such activities are costly to the community.
Every item stolen has to be replaced. Every bit of damage commited in
gaining entry into someone elses property has to be repaired. Often
the cost of such repairs exceeds the value of that taken. Similarly
all mess has to be cleared up and all violations of one's property
have to be psychologically accomodated.
Keeping people who commit such acts in prison is expensive. Letting
them go free is more so.
Ophelia
Oct 11, 2012, 4:13:33 PM10/11/12
to
news:aff16f37-8541-4b49...@h16g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
All this I know:) I am pleased you do too:) BUT... do you not think it
kinder to offer a quick end instead of being locked up permanently?
--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
kinder to offer a quick end instead of being locked up permanently?
--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Martin Brown
Oct 12, 2012, 5:24:05 AM10/12/12
to
On 11/10/2012 16:50, Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Oct 11, 9:38 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 23:22, Mel Rowing wrote:
>
>>> With the exception of the odd psychopath, those who engage in ciminal
>>> behaviour are not ill. They know full well what they do. They are very
>>> deliberate in what they do and they know full well whether it is right,
>>> wrong, social or anti-social.
>>
>> That might be true for what are in effect professional criminals.
>>
>> But there are a lot of offenders in the drunk and disorderly category
>> that are basically an artefact of the peculiar British attitude to
>> drinking alcohol. Friday and Saturday nights being highest risk.
>
> Perpetual drunks are unlikely to find themselves in prison being more
> likely to spend the remainder of a saturday night sobering up in a
> police station cell before being kicked out the next morning without
> charge. Where a drunken episode does end up in court the sentence is
> likely to be non custodial in nature.
I had in mind those being done for GBH or worse in late night drink
> On Oct 11, 9:38 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 23:22, Mel Rowing wrote:
>
>>> With the exception of the odd psychopath, those who engage in ciminal
>>> behaviour are not ill. They know full well what they do. They are very
>>> deliberate in what they do and they know full well whether it is right,
>>> wrong, social or anti-social.
>>
>> That might be true for what are in effect professional criminals.
>>
>> But there are a lot of offenders in the drunk and disorderly category
>> that are basically an artefact of the peculiar British attitude to
>> drinking alcohol. Friday and Saturday nights being highest risk.
>
> Perpetual drunks are unlikely to find themselves in prison being more
> likely to spend the remainder of a saturday night sobering up in a
> police station cell before being kicked out the next morning without
> charge. Where a drunken episode does end up in court the sentence is
> likely to be non custodial in nature.
fuelled brawls. They were for the most part perfectly good blokes when
sober. A few too many for my liking were military recently back from
serving 9 months in Iraq/Afghanistan where they had been dry.
OK about 30% were the sort of deadlegs that I would put to work mending
the remotest part of the Pennine Way on bread and water for a year but
the rest were basically OK and repentant. Even the bad ones were mostly
not thick. They could quote chapter and verse on which section of what
law they were being done under for their latest offence(s). I found
their side conversations very illuminating.
About half the guys we got were trademen where the offence could have
resulted in a custodial sentence but they were instead tagged and
obliged to work so many hours at weekends on the Payback scheme.
There was also a small contingent about 10% who should be in sheltered
housing or something. So totally gullible that they would believe
anything that they were told no matter how crazy. They didn't even try
to run away when the police turned up - that sort of thing.
>> Most of *them* seem to be quite normal useful citizens when sober!
>
> Inmates from prison don't! They come from that section of society that
> could not stay out of trouble for long even if their lives dependent
> upon on it. Their lives have been a succession of truancies and
> eventual exclusion from school. In and out of one insitution after
> another all with no effect. Then, a lot of them give it all up. They
> grow out of it for whatever reason.
things I have seen done is teaching young offenders a trade of some sort
like painting, plumbing, plastering, groundwork so that they do have a
way to earn a living afterwards.
>> How many of us break the speed limit? That is criminal behaviour.
>
> it's not property crime and because of that it is seen as victimless
abiding majority) don't really think of it as a crime.
> and thus more acceptable and more condoable. However, if your driving
> is deemed to have caused injury particularly fatal injury,
> particularly to a child then expect the worst.
using a mobile or still worse texting at the time of the collision.
>> And as Jeffrey Archer pointed out a worrying proportion of them cannot
>> read or do simple maths. Teaching them these basic skills might go some
>> way to decreasing the frequency of reoffending. I think he has a point:
>
> Done it! Got the T-shirt! 4 years of it part time. Either my teaching
> skills were inadequate or I had been blessed with the thickest of the
> thick. They didn't want to know. Mind you things might have been a
that prevents you from making any progress teaching?
> teeny weeny bit better if I had been allowed to keep them more than 5
> or 6 weeks on average. After that they'd moved onto another
> instituion, been released, wanted to do something else etc. etc. The
> education was not allowed to get in the way of the efficient operation
> of the prison service.
scheme was that although the guys at the sharp end were generally very
good and did their best, the next tier of management was ineffectual and
the one above that completely bloody useless.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Doc Insanity
Oct 12, 2012, 1:52:22 PM10/12/12
to
"Andy Wainwright" wrote in message news:k54pg1$n6$1...@dont-email.me...
Hospitals vs Prisons -a classic example of petty prejudice amongst
politicians
Imagine if when someone was sent to hospital for a typical illness, the
patient was told that they'd have to be in for a set period ranging from
a day to a year or so whether they got any better or not during that period.
With a few exceptions regarding mental health sections, how long a
patient stays in hospital depends purely on their rate of recovery.
Essentially, prisons are a type of hospital for the "morally ill"- those
whose behaviour represents either a danger to themselves or others or a
persistant nuisance to the public.
whose behaviour represents either a danger to themselves or others or a
persistant nuisance to the public.
"Law and Order" politicians love talking about mandatory sentences.
Truth is, it isn't that they like law and order at all but simply their
personal power. The less flexibility that courts and parole boards have
over the punishment, the less the punishment can be tailored to the
specific correctional needs of the criminal. It is like saying to
doctors "if a patient has flue, they must stay in hospital for six
weeks, if they have a broken arm seven days" etc etc.
Truth is, it isn't that they like law and order at all but simply their
personal power. The less flexibility that courts and parole boards have
over the punishment, the less the punishment can be tailored to the
specific correctional needs of the criminal. It is like saying to
doctors "if a patient has flue, they must stay in hospital for six
weeks, if they have a broken arm seven days" etc etc.
A prisoner who no longer poses a unnacceptable risk to the public is
just the same as a blocked bed in hospital- it means that the resources
just the same as a blocked bed in hospital- it means that the resources
are diverted from those who actually need the care. For instance, less
staff to inmates is going to mean more drug abuse, more sexual assault,
a greater chance of reoffence due to lack of rehabilitation and training.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
staff to inmates is going to mean more drug abuse, more sexual assault,
a greater chance of reoffence due to lack of rehabilitation and training.
What is your definition of "morally ill"? How will we know when this "moral
illness" has been treated satisfactorily?
0 new messages