What is Justice?

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

They don't know anything else. 

Indeed, until they're taught otherwise; why else do the privileged restrict their education?

And pretend it's a meritorious society...

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

A trained pitbull fighting dog shows no remorse, but given the horrific nature of their training, they deserve my pity and the opportunity (love) to have a better life.

A "properly trained Pitbull can also make a great family pet, as would any dog, but puzzled as to why you raise that in a thread about justice.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Lucky you, I was luck too, I had a very bad rep at school and all the bullies left me well alone.

But not everyone is capable of dishing out their own justice.

My rep was OK being rather small [nuggety] for my age and was simply seen as a good mate to most, until the school bully crossed my path...Oh, and since then, I have also metered out justice to other bullies/criminals on behalf of other vicitms. I may have relayed a case in point on that in the torture thread.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 You're letting your bias show; perhaps think about it from a different viewpoint/perspective, turning the other cheek is necessary for that.

I believe I have answered and covered that perspective. It has to do with remorse and regret from the criminal/perpetrator.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Don't I get a say, it is my topic?

Sure its your thread, but I was addressing Pertikin. But hey, if you believe terrorists and terrorism should be discussed here, that's up to you, and the mods I suppose. It was just my opinion.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Because you don't have too, again you lucky duck.

I'm not overly patriotic but I believe I live in the best country in the world...football, meat pies, kangaroos and VB and Fosters! 😁

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Don't you think the people less fortunate than you deserve protection?

Sure, did I say anything to contradict that? My heart goes out to those poor people, men, women and children in Afghanistan at this time, as I expressed in that thread. They also need more then words and pity. I also try and do [or me and the Mrs try more correctly] what we can for those less fortunate in our own small way...Have you heard of World Vision? 

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's why, at school, I befriended the most bullied among us, so as to extend my privilege, too them.

In primary school at about 9 years of age, I was given the job of looking after a little crippled boy [both leg in Irons] suffering from Polio, luckily and thankfully, the best looking girl in the class was also given that job along with me. 😊 

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think that policy should extend to everyone in our society, after all the pitbulls training is basically an extreme regime of being bullied... 😉

Of course policy should be extended to all, and it is I believe. Those convicted of crime are not automatically put in prison and the key thrown away...[unless it is for some horrendous crime] They are sometimes given suspended sentences, or on parole, or simply house arrest, or a tracking bracelet. Didn't you read what I said here....

On 8/19/2021 at 7:22 AM, beecee said:

The purpose of a prison is as follows...[1] Punishment: [ to reduce the likelyhood that they will reoffend, and deter others ] [2] Protection: Of society and the vicitm from the incorridgibles among the criminals. [3] Rehabilitation: Attempting to show the criminal the error of his ways, and attempts to prepare him to re-enter society. Rehabilitation would consist of such things as paroles, suspended sentences, house arrests, tracking devices, and psychiatric and mental assessements.

Again, I believe your Pitbull analogy is rather weak and non applicable. Just out of interest I have over my lifetime had a Labrador, German Shepard, and two Rottweilers, one living to 13.5 years, and by far the best breed I have owned. I now possess two black and tan miniature smooth haired Dachsunds. [my parents bred them and they make fantastic bed/feet warmers]  I have never once had any problem with any dog I have owned.

23 hours ago, Peterkin said:

However, if you think otherwise, there is no need to pursue the matter.

 I was just expressing my opinion. If you and dimreeper believe it is appropriate, it's OK with me. But just as obviously, the mods have the last say, and perhaps as yet not having made any comment on that, might mean  that they see it as you do. 

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Top-down rule through intimidation becomes a way of life; it is embedded in patriarchal, militaristic cultures. That the strong and privileged have the right to demand obedience from lower ranks and mete out punishment for infractions of rules made by themselves and imposed on those who can't or are not permitted to oppose them. It's called a pecking order, or chain of command or meritocracy  - but it's still institutional bullying. Under such a regime, that is the behaviour children learn; that is the hierarchy in which they must make or find or be shown their place. They don't know anything else. 

Both you and I live in a democratic society, and I know being unsatisfied with the actions and sometimes inactions of my Federal government, they will not have my vote at our elections next year. Come to think of it our present Liberal/National country party government has never had my vote.   

Edited August 19, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Again, I believe your Pitbull analogy is rather weak and non applicable. Just out of interest I have over my lifetime had a Labrador, German Shepard, and two Rottweilers, one living to 13.5 years, and by far the best breed I have owned. I now possess two black and tan miniature smooth haired Dachsunds. [my parents bred them and they make fantastic bed/feet warmers]  I have never once had any problem with any dog I have owned.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

A "properly trained Pitbull can also make a great family pet, as would any dog, but puzzled as to why you raise that in a thread about justice.

That's precisely my point, the people you call incoridgable have to be encouraged/trained in bad conditions and uncaring trainer's; the lucky people/dog's live where they're trained to be good dog's/citizens.

I have as much pity for my fellow man as I do for a mistreated canine. 

 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

My rep was OK being rather small [nuggety] for my age and was simply seen as a good mate to most, until the school bully crossed my path...Oh, and since then, I have also metered out justice to other bullies/criminals on behalf of other vicitms. I may have relayed a case in point on that in the torture thread.

I said I had a bad rep for a reason, that I'm not proud of; I put a smaller kid than me in hospital, with the nearest weapon to hand, just for calling me name's; he wasn't lucky enough to be 'nuggety'.

I wasn't lucky enough to grow up in a violence free enviroment (many of my peers actually congratulated me), but I was lucky enough to learn from my brutality.

That's why I limited my reparation to just protecting the bullied with friendship, one less person to suffer and one less person to be trained to inflict suffering.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I have as much pity for my fellow man as I do for a mistreated canine. 

As do I, but still imho anyway, there must at least be some desire to change. In that respect, the mistreated canine is far easier to retrain.

43 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I said I had a bad rep for a reason, that I'm not proud of; I put a smaller kid than me in hospital, with the nearest weapon to hand, just for calling me name's; he wasn't lucky enough to be 'nuggety'.

I wasn't lucky enough to grow up in a violence free enviroment (many of my peers actually congratulated me), but I was lucky enough to learn from my brutality.

That's why I limited my reparation to just protecting the bullied with friendship, one less person to suffer and one less person to be trained to inflict suffering.

Glad it all worked out for the better. 

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

As do I, but still imho anyway, there must at least be some desire to change. In that respect, the mistreated canine is far easier to retrain.

How do you know what they desire; you haven't walked a step in their shoe's, much less a mile? 

Being easy has no part to play in justice; it's much easier and cheaper to just kill those we disaprove of...

"None shall pass"

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How do you know what they desire; you haven't walked a step in their shoe's, much less a mile? 

Being easy has no part to play in justice; it's much easier and cheaper to just kill those we disaprove of...

"None shall pass"

 

The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few...or the one.

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

Unless "the one" is a ruler.

The need of the many are regularly, throughout civilization, subordinated to the needs (wants, convenience, whims) of the few in power. That's how laws are made. 

(Yes, I remember all about the very bad, very rare maniac who performs some horrendous depraved act, and I also know that that unreachable, incorrigible, irredeemable person is as much a product of his society as the upstanding jurors and venerable judge who lock him up and throw away the key. But he accounts for a very, very small statistical percentage of all the crimes in his society. The crimes - like the mental ailments that engender some of the crimes - are also products of the society. As are the bad laws that criminalize normal behaviour and honest harmless people.

There is no Us-good/Them-bad divide: we're all in it together: we sow what we reap.)  

Edited August 20, 2021 by Peterkin
people

[beecee]

59 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Unless "the one" is a ruler.

The need of the many are regularly, throughout civilization, subordinated to the needs (wants, convenience, whims) of the few in power. That's how laws are made. 

You and I live are lucky enough to live in a democratic society with voting rights at elections. Otherwise, yes the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, or the one, is a useful and valid concept to live by in any society.

59 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

(Yes, I remember all about the very bad, very rare maniac who performs some horrendous depraved act, and I also know that that unreachable, incorrigible, irredeemable person is as much a product of his society as the upstanding jurors and venerable judge who lock him up and throw away the key. But he accounts for a very, very small statistical percentage of all the crimes in his society.

  The unreachable, horrendous and depraved acts that do occur in all society, occur I suggest at a greater rate then what you pretend they occur at, plus of course, as you have agreed, the only means then available to society is locking them up and throwing away the key. But we are going around in circles again.

59 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The crimes - like the mental ailments that engender some of the crimes - are also products of the society. As are the bad laws that criminalize normal behaviour and honest harmless people.

Whatever the products of society are, the fact remains that we have misfits in any society...whose fault is that? I don't know, but what I do know is that even in some imaginary santisied society that you imagine, these misfits would most certainly still exist and consequently, the need for prisons etc, which you again have agreed to. Again we are in that circular argument I see.

59 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There is no Us-good/Them-bad divide: we're all in it together: we sow what we reap.)  

And most of us probably straddle the dividing fence. 😊 But again, you seem to have missed the point, It's the extremes of the 'them are bad' we are concerned with, just as the extremes of political agendas be it left or right, are  the breeding grounds for the incorridgibles, and as bad as one another.

Edited August 21, 2021 by beecee

[iNow]

56 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There is no Us-good/Them-bad divide: we're all in it together:

Current events rather strongly suggest otherwise. 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

 But again, you seem to have missed the point, It's the extremes of the 'them are bad' we are concerned with,

I Believe justice should be concerned with everyone, not just the extremes.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

just as the extremes of political agendas be it left or right, are  the breeding grounds for the incorridgibles, and as bad as one another.

There's a novel thought. At least, it seems to me a departure from what you have been saying. Do you mean that incorrigibles don't turn up at the same rate and in the same numbers in all societies, regardless of social, economic and political organization?

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Current events rather strongly suggest otherwise. 

Current events are produced by the people living them, just as historical events were. Current, like historical, events play a part in shaping the next generation of people.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Peterkin

[iNow]

Thanks, Captain Obvious. My point stands. 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I Believe justice should be concerned with everyone, not just the extremes.

It is. We all experience justice, including the criminals and misfits when they are locked up.

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

There's a novel thought. At least, it seems to me a departure from what you have been saying. Do you mean that incorrigibles don't turn up at the same rate and in the same numbers in all societies, regardless of social, economic and political organization?

I think you know what I mean. Incorridgibles will occur in any society, but when extremes of political agendas are present, [including of course that wish you seem to be pushing] they will more then likely take advantage of such a softly, softly approach, and cause more harm to the needs of the many.

Perhaps a straight answer to a straight question may short circuit this continuing merry-go-round. Do you accept that the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one? Yes or no would suffice, but I can also dream. 😉

Edited August 21, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

 

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

Do you accept that the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

It depends.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Peterkin

[beecee]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237519657_The_Social_Benefits_of_Confining_Habitual_Criminals

 

The Social Benefits of  Confining Habitual Criminals:

The short history of American criminal justice policy can be compared to a series of mood swings based largely upon the crime rate and to a lesser extent on the political and cultural fashion of the time. The cyclical nature of rising and dropping crime rates appears to correspond to the level of public and political resolve to aggressively capture and incapacitate criminal offenders. In periods when crime rates and public concern about crime have been relatively low, the premium on aggressive law enforcement appears to diminish, while programs attempting to socialize rather than punish offenders enjoy popularity in political and academic circles. Later, as crime rates and public concern about crime increase, such increases are accompanied by political pressure for a return to aggressive law enforcement and the incapacitation of criminals.

The simple truth is that imprisonment works. Locking up more criminals for longer periods reduces the level of crime. The benefits of doing so far offset the costs.

extracts:

"In the early 1990s several states began to adopt sentence increases for habitual criminals. Washington state’s adoption of Initiative 593 in November of 1993, which mandated life in prison without parole upon conviction of a third violent felony, set a standard duplicated in some form by several other states. California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law (Three Strikes) modified this approach by providing increased sentences for all repeat felons and a top term of 25 years to life for those convicted of any felony who had two prior convictions for violent or serious felonies.16 While California’s earlier sentencing and procedural reforms corresponded with a 10 percent reduction in the crime rate between 1991 and 1994, after adoption of the Three Strikes in 1994 the crime rate plummeted over 21 percent during the next 3 years".

 

COMMON SENSE AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:

COMMON SENSE AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

The idea that increased incarceration of criminals will reduce the rate of crime has two bases in common sense. First, incentives matter. When the incentives to engage in or refrain from a particular behavior change, the number of people who choose to engage in that behavior changes. This principle is the basis of much of behavioral psychology and all of economics. In criminology, this effect is called deterrence. Second, the crime rate is determined by the number of criminals not by the availability of victims, and removing a criminal from the street to prison prevents him from committing crimes against the  general public. Reducing crime by direct restraint is called incapacitation.

The anti-incarceration hypothesis is so strongly contrary to basic principles that it would take powerful empirical evidence to support it. In fact, there is substantial empirical reason to believe that imprisonment works.

 

much more at link..........

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27924967/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/mr-death-penalty/379858/

Not an entirely unbiased source, that.

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27924967/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/mr-death-penalty/379858/

Not an entirely unbiased source, that.

 

Perhaps, but useful in balancing the extreme rhetoric from the other end of the political spectrum. 

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, beecee said:

We all experience justice, including the criminals and misfits when they are locked up.

Do we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_culture#Customary_law

We are so caught up with protecting ourselves from violence and theft, we forget to consider that that protection involves violence, and theft from other's.  

If you feed a lion, it doesn't need to kill you; put it in a cage and you give it another motive.

Edited August 21, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Do we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_culture#Customary_law

We are so caught up with protecting ourselves from violence and theft, we forget to consider that that protection involves violence, and theft from other's.  

If you feed a lion, it doesn't need to kill you; put it in a cage and you give it another motive.

For the umpteenth time, no society is perfect. Nice video that again absolutely agrees that there are people, evil bastards in society, that need to be separated, just as you and Peterkin have agreed. And of course me.

Not sure what your Australian Aboriginal link proves, I have spoken and expressed by revultion on what the arrival of European man did to Aboriginal culture and society, including the extinction of some. That also happened in the Americas, and Hawaii with the advent of new diseases.  but generally speaking relationships between Idigenous and white Australia, has improved as I believe I mentioned in the torture thread. That was with a long time coming apology by a former PM named Kevin Rudd. I also have many Aboriginal friends and am fairly well up on their old culture, and most, not all, but most, are reasonably satisified with the progress that has been made. Things are not perfect, but genuine improvement and progress is being made.

None of that diminishes the need for prisons and the fact that incorridgibles exist even in their society.

 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

For the umpteenth time, no society is perfect. 

When did I suggest otherwise; the problem is, people like to use that as an excuse to prevent a better society.

A lion isn't evil, even a man killer; that it has to be killed, doesn't prevent nirvana, your fear does.

Just because we have prisons, doesn't mean they're needed...

 

 

 

32 minutes ago, beecee said:

Things are not perfect, but genuine improvement and progress is being made.

Really, we still need the planet to live on...

Quote

It covers ownership of land and waters and the resources within this region; it controls production trade; and includes social, religious and ethical laws. These include laws for conservation and farming of flora and fauna. Observance of Madayin creates a state of balance, peace and true justice, known as Magaya.

 

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, beecee said:

Perhaps, but useful in balancing the extreme rhetoric from the other end of the political spectrum. 

What end of which political spectrum has been represented here?

Please show "extreme rhetoric" in this thread.

I've asked questions, expressed my personal opinion and linked statistics from respectable (mainly government) sources. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

For the umpteenth time, no society is perfect.

That's a good reason to try to improve them.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

. Nice video that again absolutely agrees that there are people, evil bastards in society, that need to be separated, just as you and Peterkin have agreed.

I'm not sure we agree on exactly who the  "evil bastards" are, or which ones need to be separated from whom. And I don't agree with your notion of the form that 'separation' should take. What I most particularly disagree with in our admittedly imperfect justice systems is the sheer number of my fellow citizens being caged and to some degree brutalized, for a great variety of mundane offenses that bear no resemblance to horrific crimes you cited. 

I am, have been all along, and continue to be, convinced that different crimes, different criminals, should be treated differently. Not more or less of the same ineffective punishment, but a different approach.     

PS - The concept of justice extends far beyond punishment for acts deemed unacceptable by those with the power to enact laws.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Peterkin
added line

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

Just because we have prisons, doesn't mean they're needed...

 

 

That raises a good point.   One reason we have prisons is because other social structures that have been around for thousands of years have fallen apart or don't scale up well.   In small homogeneous societies, based around villages,  humans used to deal with crime by shunning or other forms of ostracism.   These methods were likely more effective than prisons,  because most people want to be part of their group and not shut off from connections.   And exile,  the most extreme form,  could mean eventual death.   It helped that you knew and had continued contact with any people you might consider wronging.   

It's still the case that more homogeneous societies, like Japanese or Norwegians,  have less need of prison,  even though they're long past the village stage.   

[Peterkin]

Indeed, the shared value system and basic understanding of how the people in a community are interdependent makes the administration of criminal, as well as social justice relatively simple.

But surely, the size, diversity and complexity of our societies shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle to formulating a concept of justice - or even to reconciling social and criminal justice, at least in principle.

 

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What end of which political spectrum has been represented here?

Please show "extreme rhetoric" in this thread.

I've asked questions, expressed my personal opinion and linked statistics from respectable (mainly government) sources. 

Yes you have asked questions and inferred/expressed/dreamed of impossible situations. Also noteworthy of questions you havn/t asked. I have also raised an article with statisitcs which you quickly dismissed as bias. On the extreme rhetoric, I'll leave that for others. 

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's a good reason to try to improve them.

Agreed in general, but it will  not be improved by pushing for the establishment of a society without prison for the incorridgibles, without care and compassion for the victim and society in general, well before any bleeding heart approach for the criminal. That will not happen.

 

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not sure we agree on exactly who the  "evil bastards" are, or which ones need to be separated from whom. And I don't agree with your notion of the form that 'separation' should take. What I most particularly disagree with in our admittedly imperfect justice systems is the sheer number of my fellow citizens being caged and to some degree brutalized, for a great variety of mundane offenses that bear no resemblance to horrific crimes you cited. 

Sure! we all have agreed that in any society realistically speaking of course, that there are evil bastards and incorridgible criminals, and that we need prison for them. Please don't ask me to reproduce those agreements. 

And yes, I have also agreed that some are brutalized within the prison system, for relatively minor offences, and have also shown progress with repsect to that, with attempts to rehabilitate those minor offenders, with home detention, tracking devices, early parole, suspended sentences and more. Did you miss that list?  

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I am, have been all along, and continue to be, convinced that different crimes, different criminals, should be treated differently. Not more or less of the same ineffective punishment, but a different approach.     

And I have expressed my agreement with that approach and have listed many alternatives. But guess what? WE still will have those that will thumb their noses at any attempts to rehabilitate, and the law/s in general...we call them the incorridgibles. Interesting happenings in Sydney and Melbourne again yesterday, with a much smaller number of redneck conspiracy ridden anti vaxxers, trying to push their extraordinary anti science position onto the rest of us. The police handled it admirably in all situations, metered out appropriate and necessary force, made many arrests and gave each $3000 fines. Let's all hope the courts uphold and support the work of those frontline police that risked there own lifes and health, in continuing metering out the required justice. Most thankfully have been refused bail. Another example of justice  being done.

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

PS - The concept of justice extends far beyond punishment for acts deemed unacceptable by those with the power to enact laws.

The concept of justice in a reasonable modern society, is said to be the first virtue of social institutions, and the laws enacted, are enacted by whoever we chose to enact those same reasonable justified laws for our society. If we don't like them, we then get the opportunity to kick them out.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

But surely, the size, diversity and complexity of our societies shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle to formulating a concept of justice - or even to reconciling social and criminal justice, at least in principle.

We already have a concept of justice. And yes, all and continued attempts should and are being undertaken to improve that system, in principle and anything else. That doesn't though detract from the fact as you and dimreeper have agreed to, that prisons are a necessary evil and are needed to separate those from society, that are a danger to society. I'm sure you'll agree that our western justice system, is far more fairer and applicable then that system administered by the Taliban.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Just because we have prisons, doesn't mean they're needed...

Of course it does! Or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof. You have already agreed that they are need to protect society from those that would harm it.

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by beecee

[beecee]

One aspect of rehabilitation for relatively minor offences and offenders is probably education. While this in most probability is already undertaken in many prison systems, perhaps more importance could be put in that direction...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1628408

Abstract

Introduction: Rehabilitation through formal education has been a long-term priority in the Norwegian criminal service. The rehabilitative effect of education is meant to result in employment and thereby ensure a successful return to society. Furthermore, education is considered as one of the most important ways to master life after ending incarceration and is an important crime prevention measure. In Norway, formal education in prison includes primary and secondary school, work qualifying courses, vocational training, and tertiary studies. Transformative learning theory argues for learning that leads to transformation and change in the learner. Method: Through Interviews with former prisoners and the bureaucrats who work closely with them, we have studied how prison formal education has affected ex-prisoners after release. Results and conclusion: The study has demonstrated that education in prison has contributed to social benefits, self-determination, and accountability by enabling the ex-prisoners to improve their mastery and self-esteem. These benefits transformation and change in the learner that have opened new doors. The study shows that formal learning can be something else or something more than the acquisition of pure knowledge or skills. More research on rehabilitation potential in different learning contexts is needed in order to improve sustainable trajectories into the society.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

But again, there will be some that will resist all attempts at rehabilitation...

Here is another article......

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10509674.2017.1359223

ABSTRACT

Recent attention has been paid to the role of a positive outlook in early stages of the desistance process. The aim of this article is to examine prisoners’ own expectations regarding future offending before they are released, and why these expectations come true or not after their release from prison. Longitudinal data were used from in-depth interviews with 24 prisoners who were interviewed at the end of their sentence and three months after release about their future outlook on criminal activities, social capital and agency factors, and current criminal activities. Findings suggest a strong connection between criminal and non-criminal expectations and post-release criminal behavior.

 

extract:

On the other hand, while the majority of the samples across all five studies reported to have a positive prerelease future expectation (desire to quit crime or made a decision to desist), most of the sample members were rearrested, reconvicted, or reimprisoned again at the follow up. For example, Shapland and Bottoms (2011) followed a group of 113 young adult male prisoners (ages 19–22) and at the time of the first interview 56% said they decided to quit crime in the near future and another 37% wanted to quit but did not know if they were able to. Nonetheless, after three years, 90 of the 113 young men (79.6%) were reconvicted.

 

From the interviews, 19 of the 24 prisoners had clear expectations of their future criminal or non-criminal behavior. After release, 15 of the 19 men (79%) lived up to their own expectations. As Figure 1 shows, nine out of eleven men who expected not be criminally active post prison, said they had been refraining from crime in the three months after release. Similarly, six out of eight men who had a criminal expectation when interviewed in prison were indeed engaged in crime after release.

Not everyone’s postrelease behavior was in line with their prerelease expectations. Two men who expected to refrain from crime after prison, were in fact imprisoned again three months postrelease so they failed to live up to their own expectations. Also, two other men expected to be criminally active but it turned out that they did not commit crimes.

In addition, some men did not have clear expectations when interviewed in prison. Four of them did not commit crime(s) after release and one of them did. Next we discuss each these groups in more depth, and also examine what explanations they themselves mentioned for (not) living up to their own expectations

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Unexpected results, albeit from small samples, still it shows that  all the statisitcs, articles biased for or against, do not invalidate the concept and reality that some human beings are just evil, and while that number [unknown but hopefully very small] is likely small, it means one thing. They need to be isolated from society. That's what prisons in all their shapes and forms are for.

 

Here is another......

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/punishment-vs-rehabilitation-in-the-criminal-justice-system/

Punishment vs Rehabilitation in the Criminal Justice System:

 

John has had a busy week fishing, looking after horses, and pruning his fresh crop of vegetables, so he’s quite pleased to retire to his room alone, and watch some television before bed.

Without context you’d assume John was an ordinary citizen. But in fact, he is an inmate at the Bastoy gaol in Norway – the “world’s nicest prison”, as it’s commonly referred to.

Prison life in the Nordic region is a marked contrast from that of countries like the USA and Australia, where a “tough on crime” mantra prevails.

Bastoy inmates are given private rooms and a weekly allowance of around $90 which they can use to buy their own groceries from the supermarket.

Though controversial, the rates of reoffending in Nordic nations are far lower than those of their punitive counterparts.

According to ABS statistics 221 per 100,000 people in Australia are behind bars on any given day and 45.6% of these will return to prison within two years of release. This compares with just 75 people per 100,000 in Norway and a recidivism rate of just 20%.

These statistics do beg the question, why don’t other countries follow suit?

Indeed, Australia has gradually take steps towards a more rehabilitative model of criminal justice over time.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The final article agrees that countries like Australia, are still approaching the scenario of a more rehabilitive approach. [something I have said many times that I agree with] but at the same time, even with such worthwhile attempts as per this Norwegian system, they still have a recidivism rate of 20%...lower then ours, but still significant, and why again prisons will always be needed.

One can only hope for less politically motivated rhetoric and more discussions on the facts and opinions I have presented.