Alternatives to jail/prison

First of all, revoke his license, permanently or for five years, whichever comes first. Give him home confinement, plus community service. Fine him hugely. Make him take daily drug tests.

Not a well thought out answer, just a quick thought.

Yes - that would apply to this situation. And I know that Mr. Michael did have his license revoked for two years, but was out driving under the influence within months of having it reinstated.
But this friend of mine was asking me about the bigger picture. We talked about this for a couple of hours and at one point the Jamie Bulger case came up- the situation in which two ten year old boys killed a two-year old.
It's been in the news quite a bit over here lately because one of the boys (he's a man now - but he was ten years old when he committed this crime) has reoffended and has been incarcerated again for possessing images of child pornography.
This friend of mine was saying that this is no surprise to him and that he believes these boys had essentially been ruined for life by their time spent incarcerated when they were younger.

Okay, yes, I can see that side of it. But when I asked, 'What would you have done with two ten year old boys who lured a toddler away from his mother and with nothing less than malicious intent bashed his head in with a brick and left his dead body on a train tracks - he quoted me some situation in Sweden or Denmark or somewhere where two young boys did essentially the same thing and were involved in out-patient treatment and apparently those two boys have grown up to be upstanding citizens.

I don't know if this is true or not - I can't find any information about it- but even if it is, it seems to me that allowing people who show an inability to follow the law and behave in a manner that is respectful of your right to safety and my right to safety to continue to be free to interact among society is perhaps inviting further and almost certain harm.

So what could be done, aside from incarceration, for burglers or robbers, or shoplifters?
Or children who murder?
I'm at a loss to think of anything. I'm truly interested to hear any ideas anyone else might have.

I have long favored BANISHMENT
for violently recidivistic criminals.





David

The purpose of punishment is to provide a deterent for future actions. Let's be clear here... this guy could easily have killed someone instead of just damaging someone's livelihood by wrecking his store. Sure he paid for it, but that doesn't cover lost business, lost time and can never cover lost life when it occurs. Asking him to do a benefit concert where he will reap great PR is in no way a deterent to future dangerous behavior. Clearly going to rehab or getting his licence removed weren't working either. A short jail sentence is clearly the next step in a progressively more aggressive approach. It should be clear to Michael that next time it will be a significantly longer sentence that will have a significant impact on his life. I think it is almost a perfect sentence. If you are worried about tax payers funding his jail time, fine him enough to cover the stay as well.

It wasn't me who was worried. I agreed with the judge's sentence. Mainly because I know that's what anyone who wasn't someone would have gotten and I believe in equal treatment under the law.

It was my friend who had the problem with the jail sentence.

What I'm asking, because I was asked and I couldn't think of another viable alternative, is if anyone else can come up with an idea about a penal system or code that does not necessarily include incarceration that would serve the twin purposes of enforcing lawful behavior and protecting the public.

From what I've read, incarceration is effective, but it is more important to be consistent than it is to be harsh. Everyone getting 60 days for a certain offensive is better than you usually get off, but sometimes you get 2 years. The deterent effect is maximized if everyone knows you will go to jail.

There are 3 basic reasons for incarcerating a lawbreaker: to remove a dangerous person from the general population, to punish the person for his crime, and to rehabilitate the person.

I doubt incarceration will ever be replaced.

This is a good question, what do you do? What would be most effective for the safety of society, which is my main concern.

Some people are mental defectives and don't learn and don't care. Those people are quite different from the rest of us. I would banish them to an island with others of their ilk and they'd have to fend for themselves. I wouldn't give them another thought.

Those that have learned from their mistakes or feel some remorse, rehabilitate. I believe it's possible for some.

For repeat offenders who are not mental defectives, I would hand out hard labour. Many people who've had their license revoked continue to drive without one - they don't respect the rules of society and carelessly put others at risk. Hard labour might teach them a lesson.

For those who have harmed others, it'd be hard labour and restitution to the family and victim. For the rest of their lives.

If you are going to have jails, though, inmates should have to work to support their stay as well as the family they abandoned and any victims.

I'm tired of these slaps on the wrist. I was watching some Canadian news last night and they were talking about a guy who'd had three drunk driving convictions thrown out; two on technicalities and one for his trial taking so long (you have the right to a speedy trial here) - plus the police lost some of the evidence (bumbling incompetents). Unfortunately, we need more judges and able prosecutors in order to dispatch justice in a timely manner.

"Not a well thought out answer, just a quick thought". [1]

From an ex-lawyer, no less, the self proclaimed king of "logic".

[1] borrowed from Edgar B.

to avenge the victim

Prisons are a relatively recent innovation in human history. So if you're looking for alternatives to incarcerating criminals, there are numerous historical models to draw upon. One would be the imposition of wergild, a form of compensation paid by the offender to the victim (or victim's family). Another type of compensatory scheme would be the lex talionis, better known as an "eye-for-an-eye." These are systems of punishment where the chief actors are the parties involved in the crime. The state acts more as a referee than as judge.

If the state becomes involved, it could always revert to the methods of punishment used before the introduction of the prison. Physical punishments were most widely utilized -- as Foucault would say, inscribing the punishment on the body of the offender. Public humiliation for misdemeanors, flogging, branding, mutilation for the lesser offenses, and death for the more serious ones.

Or you could just treat crimes as diseases and diseases as crimes, like in Samuel Butler's Erewhon.

Pretty good answer for a quickie.

I have the ultimate idea for criminal punishment/form of rehabilitation:
http://able2know.org/topic/160344-1

the very first episode of futurama had one of my favourite fry and leila exchanges, leila explains that fry will be evaluated for what job he gets, he asks what happens if he doesn't like his job and refuses to do it, she explains that he will be fired, he replies big deal i've been fired before, she goes on to say, out of a cannon, into the sun

so that idea might work

Crucifixtion in the market square is a lot cheaper than most things and a damn sight cheaper than treating crime as a disease. It puts a lot of people out of a job mind you. Stoning is even cheaper.

It's not me who initiated this theory that incarceration is not the best option for rehabilitation. But when I was challenged on it, I had to admit that in some ways I've come to see that it's not even the best option for punishment. I guess I do still believe it is the best way to keep the public safe from the criminal element and the results of criminal intent (not to plagiarize Law and Order - little joke).

You know - this person called me up because he knows that I work for the prison service and he was almost accusatory towards ME - as if it were my fault that George Michael was being incarcerated.
The most frustrating part of the conversation for me is that there was almost NO focus on the fact that George Michael had ******* committed the crime that got him in trouble. It was all about what everyone else was doing to George Michael. That was our first area of contention.

Then he asked me to think about what treatment/punishment I could come up with that didn't include incarceration- because it's obviously not working. And I think he's right - it isn't working. But I can't think of anything that would work better.

What I see happening though is that we are creating a societal subset of people who become lifetime and habitual offenders who no longer view prison or incarceration as a punishment. They've come to view it as a way of life that they've become accustomed to and even like - so much so that they reoffend in various ways to be reincarcerated when life on the outside proves too difficult.

Because inside you have a bed, three meals a day and a place to take a shower. You can have your X-box and tv, you have access to a gym with all the equipment for body-building you can possibly imagine, you have a church to go to, you have access to educational and art courses - for some people for the first time in their lives. You can gain NVQ certification in carpentry, building and construction, catering or you can earn a University degree through the Open University scheme.
But what seems to be most enticing to many of these 'prisoners' is the sense of community that they develop inside that isn't there for them outside. The problem with that is these communal ties are based on shared criminal experiences and expertise- which are continued and developed on the outside.

But I am not begrudging this population any of these things. For some of these people, this is the first and only time they've had access to what most of us have and/or should have had access to our entire lives (aside from the X-box and tv).
But what do you say to a person who was raised as a traveller, is fifty years old and has just learned to read who tells you he is terrified to be released because he knows he will not get the help he needs on the outside, so he will immediately reoffend in some petty way to get six more months on the inside, have a safe place to spend the winter, and continue to improve his reading and writing?
It's very sad when someone believes that the safest place for him is in prison. I have actually been told this, when I asked this person WHY he did not want to be released. He said, 'Miss - this is the safest place for me.'

So no - I don't want to stone people or hang them or cut off their hand or pluck out their eye.
Ultimately, I'd like to find a way to make society safe and equitable for everyone. But what we are doing is NOT working. I just wondered if anyone had any viable ideas that don't involve execution or torture.

Bearing in mind that the prison system in the UK is the result of a large range of compromises between diametrically opposite viewpoints and objectives it is probably working as well as any large bureaucratic organisation is able to work given that it must be operated and funded by human beings.

I think that's true from what I see. Although I do think there could be a sort of middle ground between hard labor and aspects of environment that seem somewhat indulgent.
For instance, there are budget cuts currently being enacted now so that educational services, especially in A4E - which is Arts for Education- which provides courses like pottery and GOALS and other programs like Fathers Inside which is a parenting course for fathers where they can do things like record themselves reading bedtime stories for their children, so they can be involved at least peripherally in their childrens' lives- are being done away with.

I think this is a horrible shame and could be alleviated by making cuts in other less worthy and more wasteful aspects of prison life.

For instance, the prison I work in is a Category C prison. So it's a training prison. It's the last stop before an open prison environment/tags/and release. Every inmate is supposed to be involved in job training and/or education.
But approximately 100 men or 25% are not. And they can't be forced to be.
So in our last staff meeting one suggestion as to how to save money was to turn off the electricity in the mens' cells during daytime hours so they can't slag off education or work to stay in their cell where they can watch tv or play X-box all day.
I thought this was a pretty good idea - but so far no movement on it. But unfortunately there has been movement on cutting the Arts courses - because they're seen as less 'necessary' than numeracy or literacy. And maybe they are in a way - but in another way- they're incredibly therapeutic for these guys - as is their gym time, etc, which is also in danger of being cut - while we're paying HUGE money to keep electricity running 24 hours a day - even through the night. Some of these guys sleep with the light and tv on 24-7.

I don't know what the big answer is - but I do know there are small changes that could be implemented.

But in general - I do feel it's a lot like school. The education is there if you want to get it at school and the opportunity for rehabilitation is there if you want to access it - at least in the prison environment I see.

I just think we have to make society for all people more attractive than prison is for some people.

I don't know if it's the same in the US - I've only worked in a young offender's prison in the US. But what I hear is that the spectrum swings the other way there - as in prison is a hell hole and no one would choose to be there and there aren't any opportunities for rehabilitation - and I can believe it.
Seems it would be good to find some sort of happy medium.

You're mixing things up here. If rehabilitation were the only purpose of punishment, then I'd agree: incarceration isn't the best option. Indeed, it wouldn't even be a logical or morally justifiable option, since prisons do a terrible job of rehabilitating prisoners.

The permissible goals of punishment are: (1) incarceration/incapacitation; (2) rehabilitation; (3) deterrence; (4) retribution; and (5) restitution. Sending George Michael to prison for impaired driving and being a general menace to the community doesn't really serve to rehabilitate him, except in a "scared straight" sort of way. I don't think Boy George is getting rehabilitated when he picks up garbage on the side of the road either. But then sending George Michael or Lindsay Lohan or all of the other celebrity malefactors to prison serves other permissible purposes of punishment. For instance, it does keep them from re-offending while behind bars, and it shows to the rest of the community that the rich and famous do no have automatic "get out of jail free" cards that they can play whenever they get into trouble. George Michael's incarceration, therefore, serves both to deter others who might think they can get away with breaking the law, and it demonstrates the community's belief in the value of the laws that it has enacted for its own benefit. That's why when your friend said this:


He's mistaken: it is working, at least in some respects. It may not be accomplishing any sort of rehabilitation, but it is nevertheless serving the purposes of punishment in other respects.

In this particular scenario, George Michael isn't a patient who is supposed to be treated by the state, he's an offender whose role is now to serve as a bad example for others to avoid. If he gets rehabilitated in the process, so much the better, but that's not the sole purpose of punishment.