|
Rutibex posted:In a lot of ways slavery was much better for black people than what we have today. A slave was a valuable piece of property, if you work him to death or underfeed him you're out a sizable investment. The same is not true of the "free market" or prison system. Unlike in prison a slave can have a family (to get more slaves of course). When a slaves work is done they could go down to the creek and swim or take a walk through the plantation, a prisoner is locked in a concrete cube when they aren't working. Etc...
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
nm posted:What is better for society: It's probably considered lame to namedrop Foucault, but Discipline and Punish is about this principle. Corporal punishment can't effectively control crime because it's over quickly and the public is as likely to sympathize with the criminal as with the people who are lawfully punishing him. Criminal behavior is part of society, because criminals take their lashes and go back to work immediately after. Incarceration places the criminal into the category of "delinquent" distinct from the rest of the citizen population, so that crime is segregated from the population. There are some ways in which Foucault's idea is overly simplistic (e.g. racial underclasses and their underground economies) but I think as a generalized concept it hits the mark.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:So what, if you try to go up to them and be all "Hey, awesome, gently caress Wal-Mart" they'll what, shoot you? You will be arrested for contempt of court 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
joat mon posted:
If anything, the West has a higher sensitivity to shame than anywhere else. The West in particular really likes not having its dirty laundry/crimes exposed, having cultivated a reputation in the media for decades as uncorrupted societies, compared to those old boogeymen, the communists. White-collar crime especially is covered up as fast as possible, and the offender given a slap on the wrist, or less. And knowing they Can you imagine public punishment for CEOs of major corporations? Religious leaders? Sports stars? Celebrities? Our societies have no shame, because there's no one doing any shaming (mothers excepted). Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Jun 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 09:19
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:Bring it back? We never got rid of slavery. Sorry, I should have said "Private slavery"
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Sorry, I should have said "Private slavery" A lot of these prisons aren't publicly owned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
This is a first and is just one more depressing reminder of how broken this country is right now: http://www.wlbz2.com/news/watercooler/article/163123/109/Man-claims-he-robbed-bank-of-1-in-order-to-secure-jail-health-care?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p quote:GASTONIA, N.C. (NBC) -- Desperation apparently drove a North Carolina man to commit a bank robbery last week. What made him sit down and wait for police to arrive to arrest him, is another story. Broke the law so he could get medical coverage while in jail. What's really a shame is logically, using our system, it does make sense. Highlighted the last sentence because it just made me laugh for some reason. Probably the irony of the whole situation and then he doesn't even get charged with the crime he wanted to commit. PTBrennan fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jun 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
PTBrennan posted:This is a first and is just one more depressing reminder of how broken this country is right now:
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
This is getting to be a problem all over the world, particularly as terror laws curtail civil liberties. They can basically "mold" your conviction to do what seems the most useful at them at the time.. At least here in Denmark there is no reason why you shouldn't just rob the poo poo out of banks and shoot cops, as you now get charged worse for just obstructing their work or committing peaceful acts of civil disobedience 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
PTBrennan posted:Broke the law so he could get medical coverage while in jail. What's really a shame is logically, using our system, it does make sense. Highlighted the last sentence because it just made me laugh for some reason. Probably the irony of the whole situation and then he doesn't even get charged with the crime he wanted to commit. Is it paranoid to wonder if he was setup to do this so that some right-wing jackass can have someone to point to next time they scream about how we should no longer provide medical treatment to prisoners?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Not necessarily, but their plants aren't usually this complex or sympathetic, so I'm going to assume he's earnest, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
That dude needs to read some of the horror stories about how our prison system will cheerfully let you rot to death in your cell rather than provide medical treatment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
Even a greedy prison administrator with no motive other than profit and no value for human life whatsoever can see that if someone specifically and publicly gets himself sent to prison for medical treatment, he stands to gain a lot more by treating him and complaining about being forced to do so ( and of course implying this happens a lot and nobody is denied treatment) than he might save by avoiding treating him (especially compared to the public and political backlash he risks). This guy will get excellent and comprehensive treatment, and the story will be used to both cover up those horror stories and further erode the access to medical care of prisoners not in the public eye. It made me very depressed to write that. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
Scikar posted:This guy will get excellent and comprehensive treatment, and the story will be used to both cover up those horror stories and further erode the access to medical care of prisoners not in the public eye. Maybe, but my money is on shuffling his medical papers around the office until he just sort of drops off the liabilities list so to speak. After further investigation, a corrections officer (who was immediately put on paid administrative leave pending evaluation of his involvement) will be not be charged due to a lack of evidence. Obituaries are on page 8.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
You know, there's an angle here that makes this whole thing even more depressing. There is a good chance that the reason this guy did what he did was because he believed he'd get good healthcare in prison because he believed the lies politicians and the prison industrial complex tell about the way prisoners are treated for their own benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
Scikar posted:Even a greedy prison administrator with no motive other than profit and no value for human life whatsoever can see that if someone specifically and publicly gets himself sent to prison for medical treatment, he stands to gain a lot more by treating him and complaining about being forced to do so ( and of course implying this happens a lot and nobody is denied treatment) than he might save by avoiding treating him (especially compared to the public and political backlash he risks).
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
Yeah, the cynical part of me says they can play the Tough on Crime™ card, and not have any problems, aside from those pesky citizens from the ACLU, or equivalent. I really can't see them giving a poo poo about a couple of people with cardboard signs outside their gates, especially when they're paid by the gov, and have no reliance on... public consumers, for lack of a better term. Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Jun 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 04:01
|
|
|
So is this dude going to end up in prison? http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52043967-78/lsd-police-charged-felonies.html.csp
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
KingEup posted:So is this dude going to end up in prison? It depends on a lot of factors. If you're just incredulous that claiming paper is LSD counts as drug trafficking, his actions could easily qualify as those crimes under state law. The fact that he was charged indicates that is the case. That doesn't mean he'll be convicted of them, though. It may be an attempt to intimidate him with harsh charges to force a plea to a lesser offense, in which case whether he serves time or not will depend on his previous criminal record. If he opted to have his day in court, I don't doubt that the DA could get a conviction out of a Utah jury. The main problem with selling people burn bags is that they tend to return later and murder you. Granted, this is probably less likely with LSD than with other drugs, but he's still creating a public safety risk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
KingEup posted:So is this dude going to end up in prison? Probably not prison, because the correct charge is a misdemeanor. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1394185.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
Yeah mort than likely he will get a fine, community service and either regular or unsupervised probation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
quote:“The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Legislation has been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some non-violent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior.” – CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA 2010 ANNUAL REPORT http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/2614 Wouldn't that be an awful thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 15:08
|
|
|
quote:Wouldn't that be an awful thing. There's all the proof you need right there. They're not worried about protecting it's citizen population, they're worried about filling their coffers and keeping people in jail. Why are Private Prisons still legal?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
PTBrennan posted:There's all the proof you need right there. They're not worried about protecting it's citizen population, they're worried about filling their coffers and keeping people in jail. Why wouldn't they be? This is America and they have money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 18:10
|
|
|
PTBrennan posted:Why are Private Prisons still legal? Because there is no effective oversight or control exerted by citizens, due in substantial part to massive apathy and misinformation among the public.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Because there is no effective oversight or control exerted by citizens, due in substantial part to massive apathy and misinformation among the public. Don't forget about TOUGH ON CRIME
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
PTBrennan posted:Why are Private Prisons still legal? They tend to be full of minorities while those with lighter skin tones are extended multiple second chances by DAs and judges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
quote:Why wouldn't they be? This is America and they have money. I know it was more of a rhetorical question to highlight the absurdity of the situation more than anything. quote:Because there is no effective oversight or control exerted by citizens, due in substantial part to massive apathy and misinformation among the public. I don't know if an apathetic public is a viable excuse anymore. Sure we're apathetic in large but even if we weren't apathetic, what could we do? Seriously, write our congressman? There has been study after study proving how horrible our system has become but nothing is done. Short of either forming some National Coalition Citizen Group to negotiate with our government on our behalf or we'd have to find a way into the system (i.e. become a politician) and work to change the minds of all the already broken and biased politicians currently in office. I really don't see a viable option at this point other than aggression or a show of force (i.e. a group of citizens large enough that the government would have to listen.) or risk a major incident in the public eyes (i.e. 1 million or more citizens stage a protest or something until a resolution is passed and I mean literally protest until a resolution is passed)? It comes down to a show of force most of the time. If they don't have to listen, they won't. Especially when you have things like this that are already legal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone PTBrennan fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jun 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
It's an even more complex issue than that because even the "legitimate" avenues of participation in democracy preferred by reformers and liberals bring you face to face with the carceral system and it's defenders. It was bad enough being an anti-war protester the way the police behaved I can't imagine what it would be like to be an anti-prison/anti-police state protester.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
Woozy posted:It's an even more complex issue than that because even the "legitimate" avenues of participation in democracy preferred by reformers and liberals bring you face to face with the carceral system and it's defenders. It was bad enough being an anti-war protester the way the police behaved I can't imagine what it would be like to be an anti-prison/anti-police state protester. I run into a brick wall when I talk to some progressives about prison reform. People have been socialized to treat criminals like dog-poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
quote:It's an even more complex issue than that because even the "legitimate" avenues of participation in democracy preferred by reformers and liberals bring you face to face with the carceral system and it's defenders. It was bad enough being an anti-war protester the way the police behaved I can't imagine what it would be like to be an anti-prison/anti-police state protester. That's why I stressed large enough group. A few thousand protesters are one thing, over a million is another. Imagine 10 million US citizens arriving all at once, surrounding the white house and demanding change and if change doesn't come right away those 10 million people threaten to forcefully remove all those unwilling to do the peoples bidding. That's the kind of force I'm talking about. It all boils down to power and who has the ability to enforce their will. Right now those select few "elite" have both and are making sure they have the ability to crush/silence any resistance. It'll never happen of course, but I don't see any other way to change the system other than overwhelming the current system of enforcement with our own through sheer numbers. They're not listening to anyone but themselves and using the current system to keep themselves in power. With the advent of technology they can use a much smaller force now to keep us in line. Police make up such a small percentage of the populace yet have unbelievable control over them, simply due to the technological advancement of weaponry and they keep making new toys all the time. PTBrennan fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jun 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I run into a brick wall when I talk to some progressives about prison reform. People have been socialized to treat criminals like dog-poo poo. That's a big problem. I brought this up to a group of College Democrats at a bar one night--specifically because someone made a prison rape joke back when we all though Obama was actually going to do something about the financial collapse--and the reaction was a mix of soul-crushing apathy and "if you love murderers and rapists so much why don't you marry them". The really, really hosed up thing though, is the amount of people I met in jail who didn't seem to see anything wrong with how things work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
quote:The really, really hosed up thing though, is the amount of people I met in jail who didn't seem to see anything wrong with how things work. Real easy to hate yourself and believe you're getting what you deserve when the rest of the world and system is telling you as much. quote:and the reaction was a mix of soul-crushing apathy and "if you love murderers and rapists I always enjoy when they use the word "Murder" or "Rapist" because it totally removes the human element from that person and instead replaces it with a monster. You're a murderer, not a human being, but a murderer. Murderers are "evil" and deserve to be in jail, that's what I was taught growing up. PTBrennan fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jun 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
PTBrennan posted:I always enjoy when they use the word "Murder" or "Rapist" because it totally removes the human element from that person and instead replaces it with a monster. You're a murderer, not a human being, but a murderer. Murderers are "evil" and deserve to be in jail, that's what I was taught growing up. Most people there are there for drugs and stealing poo poo (to get drugs).
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
You might enjoy this article. It deals a bit with how the language of law and order and the field of criminal justice is used to justify the prison system. (just don't bring this up in any of the gun threads because the distinction between "criminals" and "law-abiders" is pretty much sacrosanct there) Edit: quote:The semantic somersaults of the prison and State bureaucracy serve a calculated and specific ideological function. Once we penetrate this linguistic shield we have the key to understanding the social and political functions of the prison system. The dominant theoretical assumption among social and behavioral scientists in the United States today is that the Social order is functionally stable and fundamentally just. Pretty much spot on. Woozy fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jun 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
Woozy posted:You might enjoy this article. It deals a bit with how the language of law and order and the field of criminal justice is used to justify the prison system. Does this hint at Just World-ism? Whereby bad things happening are proof of deserving bad things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Don't forget about TOUGH ON CRIME I appreciate where you're coming from with this, but it's not wholly applicable to the question of why private prisons are still tolerated. Unlikely though it may be, it's entirely possible for someone to recognize that the private prisons (and the prison guards' unions) are a cashscam racket, while still supporting mass incarceration and brutality thanks to their disbelief in the inherent value of human life and dignity. Although, I guess that leads me to ask, how does one confront that reality of American culture? American values literally do not include universally valuing human life and dignity, and I would go so far as to speculate that there's a substantial proportion of Americans that wouldn't give a poo poo even about groups of people they would consider "good" or "trustworthy" let alone people accused of crimes. Can we hope to even begin to address problems like prison brutality, police abuses and massive government corruption in such a toxic environment?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
nm posted:Also if only people knew how few people in prison are there for murder or rape. Even a lot of murders got ties to drugs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Even a lot of murders got ties to drugs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
I've no idea if this has been already posted since I have only read like half of the thread( ), but here it is. Maybe this can work as an inspiration that a huge change can be brought (on political scale) overnight, even despite what the most of the population think.http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n500/a04.html?1645 WHY FINLAND IS SOFT ON CRIME In a classroom thick with wigs, sinks and barber chairs, a man sprays water through a woman's sudsy hair and works his fingers carefully to rinse the shampoo. Standing in front of a large mirror, another man brushes and sprays a woman's hair. Two others discuss styling techniques. It could be a scene from any community college, but for the bars on the windows. This is Hameenlinna Central Prison, near Helsinki. The stylist working at the mirror is a convicted murderer. The man washing hair is a drug trafficker. Two of the three women are also prisoners; the other is a professional hairstylist hired to teach the class. There are no guards. This is Finland's criminal justice system at work. Here, offenders either serve remarkably short prison sentences or, far more commonly, no prison time at all. Finland's incarceration rate is just 52 per 100,000 people, less than half Canada's rate of 119 per 100,000 people and a tiny fraction of the American rate of 702. In Finland, prisoners can work or study at any education level. Outside relationships are fostered with frequent visits and "home leaves." Living conditions are generous by anyone's standard. At Hameenlinna, male and female prisoners live together; occasionally they fall in love and get married in the little auditorium that serves as the prison chapel. Finland's criminal justice system is, in short, a liberal's dream and a conservative's nightmare. In that, Finland is far from unique. Most Western European nations consider large prison populations shameful and use incarceration only as a last resort. What sets Finland apart is how it came to be this way: More than 30 years ago, Finland made an explicit decision to abandon the country's long tradition of very tough criminal justice in favour of the Western European approach. Never before or since has a country so consciously and completely shifted from one philosophy of justice to its opposite. It was a grand experiment in criminal justice, and the results are in. "We don't have this idea that 'hard crimes deserve hard punishment,' " says Markku Salminen, the director general of Finland's prisons. Mr. Salminen might seem an unlikely advocate for liberal justice policies. Tall, fit, and sporting a classic policeman's moustache, he looks every inch the cop he was for 30 years. But in Finland even the cops are liberals. Mr. Salminen says one reason for the consensus is geography. "In Finland, Russia is very close. We follow it very keenly." Russian criminal justice is the negative image of Finland's. The St. Petersburg region, with 5.9 million people, has 72,000 police officers - the five million people of Finland employ 8,500. Russian criminals are far more likely to be punished with prison time, and the sentences they receive are far longer. And, in most cases, Russian convicts serve time in prison conditions that would be considered barbaric and illegal in Finland. The Finns also know that the two countries' crime rates are just as starkly different. In an international survey, 82 per cent of Finns said they felt safe walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, the second highest national rating ( after Sweden; both Canada and the United States scored just more than 70 per cent, placing them near the bottom of the 11 countries surveyed ). Russia wasn't included in that survey, but fear of crime is widespread, and for good reason -- the murder rate in Russia is 10 times that in Finland. "We see that there is nobody safe in Russia," says Mr. Salminen. For Finns, history makes the contrast with Russia all the more poignant. Until the First World War, Finland was a province of the Russian Empire. Crime and punishment in Finland were governed by the tough Russian justice system, a system the Finns inherited after independence. The break with Russia at the end of the First World War was followed by a terrible civil war, political unrest, and then two wars with the U.S.S.R. After 1945, peace returned, but Finland was firmly fixed within the Soviet Union's sphere of influence. This violent history hardened Finnish attitudes toward crime and punishment. Long prison sentences in austere conditions were standard. In the 1950s, Finland's incarceration rate was 200 prisoners per 100,000 people -- a normal rate for East Bloc countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia where justice systems had been Sovietized, but four times the rate in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. In the 1960s, Finland began edging cautiously toward reform, using its Scandinavian neighbours as models. Nils Christie, a renowned Norwegian criminologist, recalls speaking to Finnish judges and criminologists in Helsinki in 1968. At the time, Mr. Christie and others were developing the first international comparisons of prison populations, so he was the first to tell the Finns that their incarceration rate was totally unlike that of their Scandinavian neighbours and was "really in the Russian tradition." The audience was shocked, Mr Christie recalls in an interview in Ottawa, "and some of them then decided this was not a very good policy." Discussions and debates were widespread. Ultimately, says Tapio Lappi-Seppala, the director of the Finnish National Research Institute of Legal Policy, an agreement was reached that "our position was a kind of disgrace." During the next two decades, a long series of policy changes were implemented, all united by one goal: To reduce imprisonment, either by diverting offenders to other forms of punishment or by reducing the time served in prison. "It was a long-term and consistent policy," Mr. Lappi-Seppala emphasizes. "It was not just one or two law reforms. It was a coherent approach." The reforms began in earnest in the late 1960s and continued into the 1990s. In 1971, the laws allowing repeat criminals to be held indefinitely were changed to apply only to dangerous, violent offenders. The use of conditional sentences ( in which offenders avoid prison if they obey certain conditions ) was greatly expanded. Community service was introduced. Prisoners may be considered for parole after serving just 14 days; even those who violate parole and are returned to prison are eligible for parole again after one month. And for those who aren't paroled, there is early release: All first-time offenders are let out after serving just half their sentences, while other prisoners serve two-thirds. Mediation was also implemented, allowing willing victims and offenders to discuss if the offender can somehow set things right. "It does not replace a prison sentence," says Mr. Lappi-Seppala, but "in minor crimes, you may escape prosecution or you may get a reduction in your sentence." There are now 5,000 cases of mediation per year, almost equal to the number of imprisonments. Juvenile justice was also liberalized. Criminals aged 15 to 21 can only be imprisoned for extraordinary reasons -- and even then, they are released after serving just one-third of their time. Children under the age of 15 cannot be charged with a crime. The most serious crimes can still be punished with life sentences but these are now routinely commuted, and the prisoner released, as early as 10 years into the sentence and no longer than 15 or 16 years. The Finns retain a power similar to Canada's "dangerous offender" law: Persons found to be repeat, serious, violent offenders with a high likelihood of committing new violent crimes can be held until they are determined to no longer be a threat to the public. There are now 80 such offenders in prison and they, like Canada's dangerous offenders, are unlikely to ever be released. One especially critical change was the creation of sentencing guidelines that set shorter norms. Similar guidelines are used in the United States, but many of those restrict judges' discretion -- Finnish judges remain free to sentence outside the norm if they feel that is appropriate. Separation has been especially hard on her five-year-old. "The last time I saw my son, he said, 'I don't want to grow up. I want to stay a baby.' And I said, 'yes, you stay a baby until I get out and we'll grow up together.' " Her voice, quiet and steady throughout the interview, catches for the only time. I ask how long she has until she's released. "Two years and 11 months," she answers instantly. Violence is rare in Finnish prisons. Officials credit this calm in part to their policy of giving prisoners as much contact with other people, both inside and outside prisons, as possible. Frequent visits from family and friends are encouraged, including conjugal visits. There are also "home leaves." After serving six months, all prisoners can apply for leave to return to their home towns for periods of up to six days every four months. Only if a prisoner is considered likely to re-offend, or is misbehaving, is he likely to be turned down. Home leaves have been controversial in Finland, particularly when violent offenders are allowed out, but the authorities insist the program is both successful and necessary. Ninety per cent of home leaves occur without even minor difficulties. And by allowing prisoners the chance to live briefly in the real world, home leaves strengthen relationships and help prevent the atrophy of basic social skills. "Prisoners must have contact with the civil world," insists Ms. Toivonen. Officials also try to build new relationships between prisoners and people on the outside by bringing in volunteers, who may join group discussions or even visit prisoners in their cells. The goal, says Mr. Aaltonen, is that "everybody has some close connection with somebody -- some person outside, whether it is a wife or husband, social worker, friend, voluntary worker from the church or Red Cross. It is very important that everybody should have somebody waiting for him." If prisons don't encourage these relationships, says Mr. Aaltonen, released convicts will be met on the outside "by a gang or friends involved in crime." Finland's extensive use of parole and early release also creates transition periods in which released prisoners are supervised while they try to get established in legitimate society. Before and after release, the authorities help ex-cons get jobs and homes. Thanks to Hollywood, North Americans imagine prisoners are released with little more than a bus ticket and a shake of the warden's hand. In the United States, and to a lesser extent Canada, there's some truth in that. But in Finland, no prisoner is simply walked out the penitentiary gate. That was the experiment. According to the "tough on crime" theory, what Finland did was monumentally foolish. And a superficial reading of the data appears to prove this school right. From the late 1960s to the early 1990s, crime in Finland rose sharply while imprisonment declined rapidly, suggesting that by going "soft" Finland fostered crime. But crime also rose in every other country in the developed world ( including Canada and the United States ), regardless of these country's criminal justice policies. The reasons are complex. One factor: the post-war baby boom produced a huge bulge in the young males who are always responsible for most crime. More important and lasting was the rapid urbanization of the era since the social restrictions that control behaviour in rural environments are often weaker or non-existent in cities. So Finland's experience has to be judged relative to other comparable countries. In doing that, Mr. Lappi-Seppala explains, the absolute numbers of crimes aren't important -- crime data usually cannot be compared internationally because each country uses different definitions and reporting standards. What matters are the trends. Mr. Lappi-Seppala compared Finland's crime rates going back many decades with Sweden and Norway and discovered "the trends are basically identical in each of the countries. So despite the fact that we had radically different prison policies, our crime trends went hand-in-hand with the other countries." When Finland took a hard-line approach, its crime trends were identical to those of its liberal neighbours. And when it switched to a liberal system its trends continued in line with its neighbours. Ultimately, Finland's choices about how to punish crime had little or no effect on the crime rate. Mr. Lappi-Seppala produces a chart that compares the number of robberies in Finland with the average sentence given for that crime. In the decade before 1965, judges cut the length of the average robbery sentence in half with no effect on the number of robberies. Then from 1965 to 1990, the sentences for robbery stayed about the same -- while robberies first grew by five times, then dropped by a quarter, then doubled, then dropped by almost half again. There is simply no correlation between the punishment inflicted and the number of robberies. Juvenile crime is another case in point. The astonishingly liberal approach Finland implemented for juvenile crime -- no one under 15 can be charged, and offenders between 15 and 21 are rarely incarcerated -- did not spark an increase in juvenile crime. Over the last 20 years, the proportion of crime for which young offenders are responsible has even declined. After more than 30 years, the Finnish experiment has produced clear conclusions: High incarceration rates and tough prison conditions do not control crime. They are unnecessary. If a nation wishes, it can send few offenders to prison, and make those prisons humane, without sacrificing the public's safety. For those interested in building a less punitive society, the benefits of such an approach are obvious. But there are also more quantifiable returns. Mr. Lappi-Seppala notes that, by one estimate, Finland's smaller prison population has saved the country's taxpayers $200 million over the last 20 years. Then there is Finland's bounty of time. About 6,500 years of human life was saved from incarceration. Some 40,000 people avoided prison altogether. Finland's reforms meant that this time was instead spent with families and communities, a contribution whose value is surely great, if incalculable. Mr. Salminen takes obvious pride in this record and hopes other countries draw lessons from it. He has visited Canadian prisons and, in many ways, he admires our system, particularly our rehabilitation programs. One such program is now the subject of a trial in Finland. "But at the same time," he notes, "there is a whole lot of Americanization." That worries Mr. Salminen, who, like all Finnish justice officials, thinks the wave of "tough on crime" policies in the United States is folly. If Canada goes further in the American direction, he warns, "you get the American problems, too." Mr. Salminen's English may be slightly fractured but he speaks with a quiet, clear sincerity. The cop-turned-jailer insists, "You should do in Canada your own system." tldr: Finland did a prison reform 40 years ago from a horrible Russian system to Scandinavian standards and the Finnish people (including prisoners) are better for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 00:59
|
|