Funding for prison visits problem.

Johnnytwostep

Prisoners should break rocks and sew mail bags, in exchange for gruel

Johnnytwostep

pol-zeath wrote: »

OP I wonder what sort of reaction you wanted when you posted. Surely a simple google would have given you the imformation you needed.

In general people aren't sympathetic to criminals let alone somebody who has been convicted of a serious crime. You have come up with every excuse possible many don't ring true. Social Workers don't stop a child seeing their father due to a paternity dispute one of the reasons you say your relative snapped. It would be my guess that the crime was commited against the childs mother

Probably right, stereotypical power trip leads to violence when loses perceived control. That and the denial and blame of everyone else.

Jackieboy

ryouga wrote: »

No he had a few visits before he in prison before they found excuses.

And he lives south of the border.


Alleged as in he could be innocent but the law decides he is guilty so thats what matters.

Even at the time everyone was saying he wont go to jail and even wondered why it made it to court in the first place due to lack of evidencee but it was all twisted to extremes.

christaitfife wrote: »

About to rant here....

If a person has committed a crime they should rightfully be punished. I would prefer that they hadn't committed the crime in the first place, but they have. The punishment should be balanced with the intention of ensuring reoffending is reduced to the maximum amount. We are failing on the latter,

As a society we tend to think about punishment before reducing reoffending. Look at the US prison system - long incarceration periods, minimum rights and humiliation in the clothes they wear (some are even forced to wear pink underwear). We think "they committed the crime so it is good that they are being punished hard". The issue here, as these inmates have some of the highest reoffending rates in the world.

Norway has by far the lowest reoffending rates in Europe. Want to see what their 'prison system' is like: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

Stopping reoffeding should be the priority after a sentence is handed down. If this means paying for low-income families to keep in contact - i'm all for it. Heck, give them TV's and training courses, and sun decks and everything else. If they are released and don't commit another crime it saves us money, it saves someone from being a victim and it makes the country a little bit better. A prison sentence is the loss of freedom and rehabilitating, not the loss of family, mental health or anything such like.

But does it provide a disincentive to other people for committing crimes?

bspm

When I fractured my spine in a road traffic accident (criminal proceedings followed against other driver) my husband visited me every day for the entire six months I was in hospital.

He did not apply for nor receive any monetary incentives to enable him to do this, it was a struggle but we did not expect anyone to pay his fares to and from the hospital for 184 days.

Unbelievable what some people expect to be reimbursed for.

tomtom256

ryouga wrote: »

The thing is though theres no clear answer either way on innocence as its all circumstantial what ifs.

What is known though is the police got in triuble for altering statements, and complaints were upheld against social worker.

Yet you don't know that standards vary by prison, at his last one there was a good visitor centre as well, this one they want like £1.20 for a can of juice on the open day and the food was better, this one its basically microwave quality meals at best.

And as soon as he is out he will have worries about finding work due to having a criminal worry.

But it's not what if's, based on the evidence, you know actual evidence that they have committed crime, the judge has deemed that beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e. there is no doubt that they have committed and are guilty of an offence.

There is no if's or but's, although prisons are full of innocent people!

NYM

christaitfife wrote: »

About to rant here....

If a person has committed a crime they should rightfully be punished. I would prefer that they hadn't committed the crime in the first place, but they have. The punishment should be balanced with the intention of ensuring reoffending is reduced to the maximum amount. We are failing on the latter,

I think we would all agree with that.

christaitfife wrote: »

As a society we tend to think about punishment before reducing reoffending. Look at the US prison system - long incarceration periods, minimum rights and humiliation in the clothes they wear (some are even forced to wear pink underwear). We think "they committed the crime so it is good that they are being punished hard". The issue here, as these inmates have some of the highest reoffending rates in the world.

Doesn't long incarceration suggest that the opportunity to re offend is limited?

christaitfife wrote: »

Norway has by far the lowest reoffending rates in Europe. Want to see what their 'prison system' is like: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

Most criminals in Norway are foreigners.

christaitfife wrote: »

Stopping reoffeding should be the priority after a sentence is handed down. If this means paying for low-income families to keep in contact - i'm all for it. Heck, give them TV's and training courses, and sun decks and everything else. If they are released and don't commit another crime it saves us money, it saves someone from being a victim and it makes the country a little bit better. A prison sentence is the loss of freedom and rehabilitating, not the loss of family, mental health or anything such like.

If prisons offered such relatively 'luxurious' accommodation, surely it wouldn't discourage those that have next to nothing in the general population?

I do agree with rehabilitation, but through education such as training in a trade for example. They should leave prison with a skill in something other than honing their criminal 'expertise'.

Toomuchdebt

I have had a family member in prison. He was jailed for domestic violence(not against me) for 6 weeks,released on bail, broke bail and was re-prisoned for a further 6 weeks. His entire allowance went on cigarettes. Did I visit him? Yes. Did I feel sorry for him? No. He quite frankly got what he deserved. He didn't deserve to have a ps4, and x-box etc. He had books he could borrow through the service, pen and paper to write letters and a LOT of time to think about how his actions had put him there. I love him dearly but let's stop pandering to criminals. They get a bed to sleep on, food 3 times a day and are allowed visits. They don't NEED anything else. They're not ENTITLED to anything else. And as for this rehabilitation rubbish-it doesn't work!! If prison was as harsh as it is in other countries you can bet people would try NOT to get sent down. Many of the people in prison with my family member were reoffenders. Some had been there for over 30 years because they kept coming back. I wouldn't support the death penalty but I would certainly support making prisoners work fixing roads etc instead of letting them watch films and play games all day.
The family member in question hasn't reoffended since. Not because of any rehab or anything-purely because of the effect it had on the family and how hard he found prison as we all refused to send him any money for anything.

FBaby

Stopping reoffeding should be the priority after a sentence is handed down. If this means paying for low-income families to keep in contact - i'm all for it.

So if the UK is funding it, are we saying a low rate of re-offending here too?

christaitfife

NYM wrote: »

I think we would all agree with that.
Doesn't long incarceration suggest that the opportunity to re offend is limited?

The evidence does not support that. The US and Russia both have some of the longest prison sentences in the developed world. Both have some of the highest rates of reoffending.

You can lock anyone up for a long time for committing a crime, but this:
1. Costs a heck of a lot
2. Achieves little other than taking people off streets - but they will likely be released at some stage anyway.
3. Institutionalizes offenders
4. Condemns an offender to a negative environment. Prisons are full of people with attitudes glorifying crime.

NYM wrote: »

Most criminals in Norway are foreigners.

That is not true. The rate is in the bid 30 percentile. This is about average for mainland Europe.

NYM wrote: »

If prisons offered such relatively 'luxurious' accommodation, surely it wouldn't discourage those that have next to nothing in the general population?

The evidence contradicts this. Norway offers prisoners many facilities that we scoff at. The fundamental principle here is to treat those who put effort into rehabilitating with respect, courtesy and as people. It seems to be working better than anything else anywhere on the planet has tried.

We need a fundamental change in our attitude to treating people who have committed criminal acts. I think the problem is public perception.... we like to be outraged bay Daily Mail-esque articles about the crimes and then to promptly forget about the offender.

powerful_Rogue

Rehabilitation my @rse. Prison should be for punishment. Should be such an expereince they never want to go back. We should have places like Tent City in Arizona.