Poll: Prison and crime -yeah, again

[SenseOfTumour]

So I was reading about the graffiti guy who got EIGHT years jail at 18.

I was thinking, who'd be in favour of this instead?

Non violent offences, particularly any that caused a monetary loss, theft, fraud, vandalism, etc, would be put on a form of community service.

My only addition to the community service would be ankle tags with a taser device built in, that if you went more than 100 yards or so from the officer in charge, or if that officer needed to activate it, you'd get shocked. A minor one as a warning, then a stronger one designed to incapacitate as needed.

Each day they'd have their work judged, a good day would take two days off the sentence, an average one day, a bad day none, and if causing trouble, would have time added, or other penalties considered.

I just figure we waste so much locking people up sat at blank walls, getting more and more resentful of the society that put them there, when we could make use of them, and get them to really repay their debt to society.

I'm personally against fines as a way to punish people as it's not an equal punishment, after all, Simon Cowell could drive like a twat all year, if the only punishment were fines, it'd just be 'here's £100 officer, I'm going back to doing 90mph now!'. The rich are not deterred and the poor can't pay anyway.

sure there's 'human rights' issues with essentially shackling up a hostile workforce, but I'm not really asking if it's viable, more if it was a better idea than jail or fines for lesser offences?

Maybe could even assign them a minimum wage which goes into an account, when that account hits double the costs of their rehabilitation, and the cost of their original crime, they go free.

The extra money generated can go toward the materials used in the repairs, decorating, park and garden work etc that these groups would do.

 

[Jedoro]

I really think prison is only for career or major offenders, most others can be rehabilitated into functional members of society. Good plan, OP.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I should state, its not designed to make money, more to improve the quality of life for the country, by repairing communal areas, improving parks and gardens etc.

Also, I don't feel prison is the best option for minor offences, and fines don't work either.

Lock up a violent criminal to protect society, but is a shoplifter, music pirate or fraudster dangerous? Would they not be better put to use repaying their debt to the society that they wronged?

Perhaps a call centre could be set up as an option for those who cannot manage more physical labour also.

Personally I'd take Alcatraz, showers and all, over working in a call centre, but it's an option.

 

[Good morning blues]

I could see this if it were a voluntary program, but not otherwise. Involuntary labour isn't rehabilitation; it's slavery.

Lock up a violent criminal to protect society, but is a shoplifter, music pirate or fraudster dangerous? Would they not be better put to use repaying their debt to the society that they wronged?

This is, you would never go to jail for any of those (depending on the scope of the fraud).

 

[Julianking93]

The only reason to send anyone to prison is if they committed a violent offense. Anything else will just seem ridiculous.

For non violent crimes, it should just be like a rehabilitation center of some kind to get their heads clear. Sort of like a white collar minimum security prison but even less than that.

This was a non violent crime and the kid still went to jail. I didn't see the original video, but I'm sure this was gang related in some way and he was most likely ethnic.

They see any ethnic they're just gonna send him straight to jail. This stupid country.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I could see this if it were a voluntary program, but not otherwise. Involuntary labour isn't rehabilitation; it's slavery.

Lock up a violent criminal to protect society, but is a shoplifter, music pirate or fraudster dangerous? Would they not be better put to use repaying their debt to the society that they wronged?

This is, you would never go to jail for any of those (depending on the scope of the fraud).

Interesting, is it slavery if you choose it? To me you're choosing it by commiting crimes you know will end up in a period of time on the workforce, just as the death sentence isn't seen as murder as it's quite publicly known it's a possibility if you commit a bad enough crime.

An interesting point however, and I came from another topic about some 18 year old who got 8 years jail for his graffiti and possession of drugs.

To me, 8 years jail means his life's about over, and he's probably going to end up a career criminal, after society rejects him repeatedly for having a criminal record. Maybe a year spent stripping graffiti from walls in his local area would be a more suitable punishment is what I'd be saying.

 

[SturmDolch]

I think prisons should just serve as temporary housing before criminals are sent to the mass execution chamber. Honestly, if a person does the crime once, they will again. I don't see the point of keeping them in society and eventually releasing them again.

Now, for minor offences, your idea is great. Say someone shoplifted a candy bar or, like the artist, sprayed graffiti. They could be sentenced to 15 years or so at a forced labour camp.

 

[tomtom94]

I'm fairly certain prison doesn't work as a deterrent. Certainly not in the UK where sentences are shortened in order to cut prison overcrowding.
The OP sounds good. However:

Now, for minor offences, your idea is great. Say someone shoplifted a candy bar or, like the artist, sprayed graffiti. They could be sentenced to 15 years or so at a forced labour camp.

Am I the only one who thinks "Nineteen Eighty Four"?

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'm fairly certain prison doesn't work as a deterrent. Certainly not in the UK where sentences are shortened in order to cut prison overcrowding.
The OP sounds good. However:

Now, for minor offences, your idea is great. Say someone shoplifted a candy bar or, like the artist, sprayed graffiti. They could be sentenced to 15 years or so at a forced labour camp.

Am I the only one who thinks "Nineteen Eighty Four"?

I thought 15 years was harsh, 19 to 84 is nuts (and a bit vague)

Nice to see the idea has generally been taken as not too weak or extreme however and got some people talking.

 

[quiet_samurai]

So My only addition to the community service would be ankle tags with a taser device built in, that if you went more than 100 yards or so from the officer in charge, or if that officer needed to activate it, you'd get shocked. A minor one as a warning, then a stronger one designed to incapacitate as needed.

They actually do have something like that for some DOC work forces, but they are belts around the waist. If someone acts up there is a little box right at the base of the spine that activates, pretty much turning you into a human circuit board.

I'm personally against fines as a way to punish people as it's not an equal punishment, after all, Simon Cowell could drive like a twat all year, if the only punishment were fines, it'd just be 'here's £100 officer, I'm going back to doing 90mph now!'. The rich are not deterred and the poor can't pay anyway.

If you are a repeat violator your fines will grow drastically, not to mention higher insurance rates. And those celebs that drive $100,00 plus vehicles will get F'ed in the A with elevated insurance rates. Even though there are alot of them that could afford the higher rates, they still ptrobably don't enjoy paying them.

 

[open trap]

Eh its cheaper to kill em but hay, i need some one to put in that inground pool and i dont live near the border...

 

[Sulu]

Build more prisons and stick all the piekeys and various other human dirt in them for rediculously long times. That will make sure Mr. Drug addict and Mr. I have no car insurance don't do it again.

Plus I know you get your car siezed if you don't have insurance, but you should also be put into prison for 1 year per time caught. In all these police shows there are loads of repeat offenders who won't learn their lesson and need to be shown the hard way.

Finally all prisons should be turned into a real horrible place to go. At the moment they get TVs and nice chairs so in my world I would have them turn into Shawshank Redemption style lovepits. But as I am not a real nasty person I will allow people to keep certain human rights, you get more human rights the less bad the crime was. Sorry murderers and rapists but I don't believe you have the rights to clean water or natural light.

 

[tomtom94]

I'm fairly certain prison doesn't work as a deterrent. Certainly not in the UK where sentences are shortened in order to cut prison overcrowding.
The OP sounds good. However:

Now, for minor offences, your idea is great. Say someone shoplifted a candy bar or, like the artist, sprayed graffiti. They could be sentenced to 15 years or so at a forced labour camp.

Am I the only one who thinks "Nineteen Eighty Four"?

I thought 15 years was harsh, 19 to 84 is nuts (and a bit vague)

Nice to see the idea has generally been taken as not too weak or extreme however and got some people talking.

I do hope you got that I was referring to George Orwell.

 

[Low Key]

I'm personally against fines as a way to punish people as it's not an equal punishment, after all, Simon Cowell could drive like a twat all year, if the only punishment were fines, it'd just be 'here's £100 officer, I'm going back to doing 90mph now!'. The rich are not deterred and the poor can't pay anyway.

Going over 70mph in a 55mph zone (or 80mph in a 65mph zone, the two most common in America) is actually a gross misdemeanor punishable with jail time if broken more than once, or even the first time if the judge wants to be an asshole.

Just sayin'.

 

[Monocle Man]

Thing is when you give them a minimum wage job, there are many people who can't find any jobs. Then you give a criminal a minimum wage job over someone who doesn't have a job and has never committed a crime in his life.
To the good lower-class person it seems like you are rewarding a crime. Homeless people would be all over small crimes too.
"Do not steal: sit in the gutter"
"Do steal: get stolen wares or get a job"

But if you do not give them any money for their work and you force them to work often they can't do a job to support themselves. They won't earn things to pay for their food, not to pay for their rent/loans/bills.

Then there is the option to let them work for life-essentials and shelter which brings you back to something quite similar to prisons.


Something like this only works to punish youths, since they do not have to take care for themselves, financially at least.

--

Personally, I believe you should not lower the punishments. It seems you're saying: "A petty crime, oh well."
Set cameras everywhere, make sure you can find anyone, anywhere at any time as long as they're in a public place (also place procedures which prevent viewing that information for other things than crime-fighting). With that done you're guaranteed to find almost all your criminals.
Let your citizens know that all criminals will be found and raise the punishments.
Once you made that clear, the punishments would only be used as prevention.
Example:
Murder (excluding the consequences of self defence) ==> Execution.
Mass murder/ murder with great suffering to the victim ==> Painful execution.
Causing great suffering to a victim ==> Jail time.
Theft ==> Payback ten times the worth of the item along with the item and/or jail time
Vandalism ==> repair/pay the repair and/or jail time

If someone does murder someone with intend to kill for a petty reason you, of course, execute them and he'll serve as an example.

 

[Beastialman]

I cant' remember what story it was but people who committed murder, rape, and anything under the "OH FUCK THROW HIM IN JAIL NOW" category would be put in a walled off city with other offenders and forced to fend for themselves (every month a helicopter would drop supplies in).

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Thing is when you give them a minimum wage job, there are many people who can't find any jobs. Then you give a criminal a minimum wage job over someone who doesn't have a job and has never committed a crime in his life.
To the good lower-class person it seems like you are rewarding a crime. Homeless people would be all over small crimes too.
"Do not steal: sit in the gutter"
"Do steal: get stolen wares or get a job"

But if you do not give them any money for their work and you force them to work often they can't do a job to support themselves. They won't earn things to pay for their food, not to pay for their rent/loans/bills.

Then there is the option to let them work for life-essentials and shelter which brings you back to something quite similar to prisons.


Something like this only works to punish youths, since they do not have to take care for themselves, financially at least.

--

Personally, I believe you should not lower the punishments. It seems you're saying: "A petty crime, oh well."
Set cameras everywhere, make sure you can find anyone, anywhere at any time as long as they're in a public place (also place procedures which prevent viewing that information for other things than crime-fighting). With that done you're guaranteed to find almost all your criminals.
Let your citizens know that all criminals will be found and raise the punishments.
Once you made that clear, the punishments would only be used as prevention.
Example:
Murder (excluding the consequences of self defence) ==> Execution.
Mass murder/ murder with great suffering to the victim ==> Painful execution.
Causing great suffering to a victim ==> Jail time.
Theft ==> Payback ten times the worth of the item along with the item and/or jail time
Vandalism ==> repair/pay the repair and/or jail time

If someone does murder someone with intend to kill for a petty reason you, of course, execute them and he'll serve as an example.

Heh, I sense I didn't explain myself well on the financial side, I meant that people who are on the workforce, earn a certain amount, which they don't receive. It instead goes into a personal fund, which when it hits ,for example, double the cost of the damage they caused, they are considered to have paid their debt to society. It is in no way meant to reward the offender, but to let them see that their work is going towards repaying their crimes.

I also admit I didn't consider the fact that they'd still be in a prison, but I'd like to think it's going to be a fairly reasonable one, as they're already working to repay their debt to society, leave the rougher prisons to the violent offenders and the sex cases. Each morning, they're shipped out to their job, then they get reasonable treatment and food, as befits someone who's accepting their punishment and toeing the line.

 

[Kae]

I like you're idea it's actually great! it just works it's a pretty damn good idea!

 

[Monocle Man]

snip

Heh, I sense I didn't explain myself well on the financial side, I meant that people who are on the workforce, earn a certain amount, which they don't receive. It instead goes into a personal fund, which when it hits ,for example, double the cost of the damage they caused, they are considered to have paid their debt to society. It is in no way meant to reward the offender, but to let them see that their work is going towards repaying their crimes.

I also admit I didn't consider the fact that they'd still be in a prison, but I'd like to think it's going to be a fairly reasonable one, as they're already working to repay their debt to society, leave the rougher prisons to the violent offenders and the sex cases. Each morning, they're shipped out to their job, then they get reasonable treatment and food, as befits someone who's accepting their punishment and toeing the line.

Which brings you to the:
"But if you do not give them any money for their work and you force them to work often they can't do a job to support themselves. They won't earn things to pay for their food, not to pay for their rent/loans/bills."

If the criminal would only work a few hours a week it could already be enough to make him unable to continue his current job or it might be a far too small punishment.

Or the villain would be stuck with it forever.
7 bucks an hour, 2 hours a week, the contents of a jewellery-store's display window.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Again its an idea that needs work, and I appreciate all the feedbak so far pointing out problems, but here's the current deal.

Non violent offenders, instead of heading to a heavy prison, they'll end up somewhere low security, and have a 35 hour week, working to improve the community, and the work they do goes towards paying their debt to society.

It's cheaper all around, and we're not just 'wasting' people by locking them in a cell to stare at a wall for 23 hours a day.

Of course, there's opting out, but you get a much rougher prison, and those who choose to work to repay society get a better class of prison, with maybe some of the luxuries that the Daily Mail seems to think they all have.

Also there'd be a maximum 'value' to work towards as well as a maximum term of service, so no-one's stuck in the machine forever, it's meant to be a good concept, not something to be slavishly adhered to.

Which bugs me, too, if all prisoners really got a free PS3, a HDTV, free porn, drugs and visits from hookers, why is anyone obeying the law? Surely we're not all 360 fanboys?