In a bizarre switch everyone EXCEPT the government goes mad

[Rosbjerg]

Prison can't rehabilitate hardcore criminals because of a very simple fact - in order to be normal you need normal rolemodels. The place I worked at, each "student" (which was the newspeak term for inmate) had a pedagogue and for every 5 there was a support-student attached (my job). They lived in dorms where these support-students would rule supreme and take on the responsibilty of becoming a rolemodel. It worked pretty well, I believe we had a 4/5 successrate on people leaving and joining society. The last 1/5 were usually send to prison withing the frist 2 years, either because they didn't show any progress and actually deteriorated or because they simply broke a law that was too serious.

 

Around 80% of the people in there when I worked there (2005) are out now and taking an education or working in normal jobs - although some have flexjobs, where the government pays a little to the firm that have hired them and then they only have to work 50-70% of a fulltimejob - this is rare though.

[Walsingham]

That sounds quite logical.

[Orogun01]

Prison can't rehabilitate hardcore criminals because of a very simple fact - in order to be normal you need normal rolemodels. The place I worked at, each "student" (which was the newspeak term for inmate) had a pedagogue and for every 5 there was a support-student attached (my job). They lived in dorms where these support-students would rule supreme and take on the responsibilty of becoming a rolemodel. It worked pretty well, I believe we had a 4/5 successrate on people leaving and joining society. The last 1/5 were usually send to prison withing the frist 2 years, either because they didn't show any progress and actually deteriorated or because they simply broke a law that was too serious.

 

Around 80% of the people in there when I worked there (2005) are out now and taking an education or working in normal jobs - although some have flexjobs, where the government pays a little to the firm that have hired them and then they only have to work 50-70% of a fulltimejob - this is rare though.

 

Sounds like a great model, yet I have to wonder if is applicable to every society? You are Danish, right? How big is the separation amongst classes? and how would going to jail affect an individual's life after release?

I ask this because I'm trying to figure if this model could be applied here on the States, my expectations are low but if it could grant results the decrease on crime could be significant.

[Walsingham]

I do think that there is a fundamental problem at root here. Most criminals are basically unfortunates. They suffer from an absence of effective skills and hormones which drives them to seek outlets which offend good society. I'm not excusing it, but these folk need treatment and rehab, to become contributors.

 

However I would contend from my own research and experience that there are some criminals - who account for the majority of serious crime - who are effectively enemies of society and treat society as such. They have no interest in rehab because they have no interest in participating.

 

Our main problem is that we currently put simple unfortunates into the same mangle intended for the serious troublemakers, which brutalises them to no purpose other than making them worse. We also put serious criminals through a process which is softened to accomodate the simple unfortunates.

 

The problem with resolving into two systems is that it offends the notion of one rule of law for all. I'm not sure what could be done about that.

[Orogun01]

I do think that there is a fundamental problem at root here. Most criminals are basically unfortunates. They suffer from an absence of effective skills and hormones which drives them to seek outlets which offend good society. I'm not excusing it, but these folk need treatment and rehab, to become contributors.

I'm going to disagree strongly with you here, you are completely ignoring personal responsibility. A lot of people live in need and not all of them turn criminal, simply because they did not choose it. What's worse you make it sound as if criminal are hopeless cases because they are uneducated or have a physical deficiency.

However I would contend from my own research and experience that there are some criminals - who account for the majority of serious crime - who are effectively enemies of society and treat society as such. They have no interest in rehab because they have no interest in participating.

I would have to ask you, what kind of crimes are you talking about? I'm going to guess based on your post that you are referring to gangs. I guess i'm just reminder of the two kinds of gangbangers: the ones that join out of necessity, greed, or naivety and eventually get out or become less involved, and the ones that love the "game" and want to go down guns blazing.

Our main problem is that we currently put simple unfortunates into the same mangle intended for the serious troublemakers, which brutalises them to no purpose other than making them worse. We also put serious criminals through a process which is softened to accomodate the simple unfortunates.

 

The problem with resolving into two systems is that it offends the notion of one rule of law for all. I'm not sure what could be done about that.

I will make the distinction between "fishes" and "sharks" here. There is a lot of aspects to prison culture, most "sharks" offenders find their niche on one of the prisons gangs. Is this element that allows for the trading of information and the development of connections (they know a guy that knows a guy kind of thing) While the "fishes" may suffer the most, they tend to want to close that chapter of their lives and move on.

Two systems would not work because is the serious offenders that benefit from prison to further their criminal careers.

[Walsingham]

I take your objection in good spirit, Orogun because I share your horror when people try to dodge personal responsibility. Yet nevertheless I DO maintain that a person can be maladjusted trhough no particular fault of their own while retaining tehir responsibility over what happens next. This is important because such outside factors can be leveraged by the people who suffer the consequences of the crime. I don't see that as being particularly odd or nice/fluffy. Surely the whole purpose of leadership - in business for example - is to apply similar leverage to make people behave better?

 

I say that people can be brought low by a combination of factors. take, for example, the chap who suffers from low levels of monoamine oxidase. He has a fundamental need to perform high risk behaviours. If you put him in a very safe environment he will find it as stifling as solitary confinement would be to you or me. If he is rich he will find numerous avenues for safe pursuit of his thrill-seeking. he may become a mountain climber, or surfer. However, if he is poor what outlet does he find? Petty criminal behaviour is free and a big risk. I use this example because I know so many men who fit this template who managed to kick petty criminality when they joined the Army and found outlet in the field. They are as good as gold, utterly trustworthy, provided they are getting enough excitement. I wouldn't excuse any of them if they stole anything from me, nor would I forgive, but I would expect the spark which initiated the trouble to be a dull posting, or some other misfortune.

 

Similarly, if someone is on crack cocaine then this literally hardwires the brain into a different 'shape' that motivates the addict towards the drug as strongly as a father would be to save his kids.

 

I draw a big distinction between these bottom up motivations for crime, that arise beyond the boundaries of the subject's control and must simply be struggled against at the conscious level, and the top down motivations. A top down motivated criminal being someone who experiences no fundamental discomfort without criminality, but whose ambition and greed make them choose a life of crime accompanied by almost dispassionate violence. I have met many such people in my earlier days as a journalist.

[Calax]

Wals, this is a bit random, but are you writing a story on our little microcosm?

 

That said, I (in my current sleepless state) have in my head that humanity is getting more violent and a bit more extreme because we don't have a major "us or them" fight. Human history is fraught with wars and conflicts, and usually there is a significant war that is causes the worlds population to drop by a large %. Within the past two (three now?) generations we haven't seen a war on that scale that attracts those who are like this. Admittedly this is sort of a mixed blessing, as those sorts of soldiers will generally lead to atrocities, but at least it gets them out of the domestic side of things. And there's also the fact that there is a good chance that if a person like this gets drawn in, they'll find that they're killed pretty quick because they enjoy the kill to long.

 

Also (at least in america) military enlistment is low, partly because of the... interesting requirements that are foisted on people. They won't take people below a certain level of intelligence, if you have basically any mental or physical disability they won't take you, obesity, homosexuality, tattoos, basically anything that they can find they will DQ you for. Previously the army had fairly lax standards for entrance (16 year olds joining up for example) and thus was able to attract a much larger demographic, but that's been removed. This removes a possible outlet for the people that Wals mentioned (as a criminal record ALSO DQ's you PDQ, seriously a guy I know was enlisted and got caught SHOPLIFTING and had to wait 2 years before his record was expunged), and seriously drops the enlistment numbers. Admittedly some would join simply for the hero worship that they get for having anything remotely close to military service.

 

Anyway, in order to get an ideal correction system, you'd have to do almost a paradigm shift on the system so that rather than be pushed in with the harder criminals you put the softer ones (thieves, druggies) in with somebody who can help em. Oner mentioned the fact that the prison system is "shark and fish", which promotes darwinism to a surprising extent. If you don't scare you'll end up as somebodies toy, or end up bribing them for protection etc. To put somebody who's quite malleable into this system and expect them to come out any semblance of "normal" is to trick yourself.

 

And the mental institutions are even worse. The Docs there are so scared of releasing somebody who has a psychotic break that they won't release anyone who's not a complete vegetable. People can stay for YEARS beyond a prison sentence simply because of a doctor fearing what's going to happen and trying to cover his/her ass.

[Orogun01]

I take your objection in good spirit, Orogun because I share your horror when people try to dodge personal responsibility. Yet nevertheless I DO maintain that a person can be maladjusted trhough no particular fault of their own while retaining their responsibility over what happens next. This is important because such outside factors can be leveraged by the people who suffer the consequences of the crime. I don't see that as being particularly odd or nice/fluffy. Surely the whole purpose of leadership - in business for example - is to apply similar leverage to make people behave better?

I do see your point; I guess that as a humanist I tend to overestimate the value of choice. Because I believe that the choices that aren't made are still choices taken.

 

I say that people can be brought low by a combination of factors. take, for example, the chap who suffers from low levels of monoamine oxidase. He has a fundamental need to perform high risk behaviours. If you put him in a very safe environment he will find it as stifling as solitary confinement would be to you or me. If he is rich he will find numerous avenues for safe pursuit of his thrill-seeking. he may become a mountain climber, or surfer. However, if he is poor what outlet does he find? Petty criminal behaviour is free and a big risk. I use this example because I know so many men who fit this template who managed to kick petty criminality when they joined the Army and found outlet in the field. They are as good as gold, utterly trustworthy, provided they are getting enough excitement. I wouldn't excuse any of them if they stole anything from me, nor would I forgive, but I would expect the spark which initiated the trouble to be a dull posting, or some other misfortune.

Well, the chap's nurture could outset his nature and balance his personality. I would argue that those petty criminals that joined the army have some measure of humanity that many within the system lack. Perhaps is the whole ideology that gangs have attached to crime and the necessity of viciousness to maintain status.

I would also say that the discipline instilled on them by the Army may had made them better men, although that is not always the case and many gangs exist within the military or the reverse; which is worse, military trained men going into gangs.

Similarly, if someone is on crack cocaine then this literally hardwires the brain into a different 'shape' that motivates the addict towards the drug as strongly as a father would be to save his kids.

 

I draw a big distinction between these bottom up motivations for crime, that arise beyond the boundaries of the subject's control and must simply be struggled against at the conscious level, and the top down motivations. A top down motivated criminal being someone who experiences no fundamental discomfort without criminality, but whose ambition and greed make them choose a life of crime accompanied by almost dispassionate violence. I have met many such people in my earlier days as a journalist.

Even though what you say is true, the exception still exist where the world of violence may in turn make bottom up criminals violent.

But I sorta feel that we are missing the point among this discussion, reformation was the main subject. I will challenge your model, since bottom up and top down have no real bearing on reformation and it's the character of the individual that determines this. I say this because examples of top down criminals that are not violent by nature and therefore face easier reformation come to mind. Greed is motivation rather than a factor in determining how it is attained, there have been and are many intelligent criminals that become successful without resorting to violence or keeping it to a minimum.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Orogun01

[Walsingham]

I shall have to take time to consider both your points.

[Rosbjerg]

Sounds like a great model, yet I have to wonder if is applicable to every society? You are Danish, right? How big is the separation amongst classes? and how would going to jail affect an individual's life after release?

I ask this because I'm trying to figure if this model could be applied here on the States, my expectations are low but if it could grant results the decrease on crime could be significant.

 

I can't find any numbers that actually show how many poor people we have - but I would be surprised if we weren't in the top 10 of countries with equally distributed wealth. Especially given our tax rates that go from 20-70% based on annual income. So I imagine we have a very homogeneous society mainly consisting of few poor and few very rich.

 

Going to jail has an affect, but it really depends on the situation and what you did. In my experience, it's mostly the big companies that refuse to hire someone with a criminal background. But if you've done time because of financial crimes then you'll have a hard time getting a job, we don't like people who steal.

It's important to understand though that we don't place such a huge emphasis on family values (in public) as you do - if a politician is caught cheating on his wife then people lose a little respect for him, but he won't lose his job - if he's caught stealing or gets a DUI however.. So if people have done crimes that have nothing to do with their competence in a given job, then we are more forgiving - and very harsh if they have.

 

I doubt you could implement this system in America now, but perhaps that will change in the years to come. Obama might bring a little socialism to your shores yet.

[Orogun01]

Sounds like a great model, yet I have to wonder if is applicable to every society? You are Danish, right? How big is the separation amongst classes? and how would going to jail affect an individual's life after release?

I ask this because I'm trying to figure if this model could be applied here on the States, my expectations are low but if it could grant results the decrease on crime could be significant.

 

I can't find any numbers that actually show how many poor people we have - but I would be surprised if we weren't in the top 10 of countries with equally distributed wealth. Especially given our tax rates that go from 20-70% based on annual income. So I imagine we have a very homogeneous society mainly consisting of few poor and few very rich.

 

Going to jail has an affect, but it really depends on the situation and what you did. In my experience, it's mostly the big companies that refuse to hire someone with a criminal background. But if you've done time because of financial crimes then you'll have a hard time getting a job, we don't like people who steal.

It's important to understand though that we don't place such a huge emphasis on family values (in public) as you do - if a politician is caught cheating on his wife then people lose a little respect for him, but he won't lose his job - if he's caught stealing or gets a DUI however.. So if people have done crimes that have nothing to do with their competence in a given job, then we are more forgiving - and very harsh if they have.

The reason why I asked is precisely the level of prejudice against any wrongdoer that exist on the States, rehabilitation is nothing without a support net which most criminals can't find outside. Maybe they should implement a system where the reformed criminals turned social workers try not only to prevent crime by public speaking in front of youth, but also try to offer a way out for the criminals that grow tired of that kind of living. Opinions?

I doubt you could implement this system in America now, but perhaps that will change in the years to come. Obama might bring a little socialism to your shores yet.

Be careful, those kind of comments might make you catch fire

BTW, I truly truly Hate the new post system Can't find what was the last post and have to scroll down after seeing them. I better stop now before I turn green.

[Rosbjerg]

In some ways a very strict society brings its own rewards in terms of criminals in jobs.. they will be that much more grateful when someone offers them one, that you generally end up with a much harder working and loyal employee. Government jobs are a good filler, but since Americans are notoriously sceptical (and rightfully so) of government that might not be a good idea. So small businesses are probably the best outlet and the best way is, like you suggest, a network that keeps their ears to the ground and in good contact with potential employers to help the ex-criminals filter back into society.

[Orogun01]

In some ways a very strict society brings its own rewards in terms of criminals in jobs.. they will be that much more grateful when someone offers them one, that you generally end up with a much harder working and loyal employee. Government jobs are a good filler, but since Americans are notoriously sceptical (and rightfully so) of government that might not be a good idea. So small businesses are probably the best outlet and the best way is, like you suggest, a network that keeps their ears to the ground and in good contact with potential employers to help the ex-criminals filter back into society.

A network of sorts already exists, or at least the potential for one. Amongst low income communities there are ex-con individuals that serve as advisors and try to help those trying to leave that life, but without any form of organization or the government to back them their efforts to return rate remains low. The pieces are already there, the only thing needed is someone to take the step forward and connect the dots, uniting them under one group dedicated to a more general rehabilitation process and not just within the niche to which each

ex-con used to belong to.

The public has no need to know of this; if at first this remains a small project and produces favorable results it can then be brought to the mainstream. The major problems I foresee is that most of these individuals are targets for anyone trying to make their bones and putting them under the same roof may be a bad idea, also because of American law it will be a slow crusade to approve this; even with good results.

[Walsingham]

I think part of our disjunction is that I suggest Orogun believes behaving yourself is a neutral state, which one exists in by default. I apologise if I presume too much, but it is certainly the view of others. This is important, because I believe conversely that behaving is an acquired skill married to a correct temperament. You need to be TRAINED to do things like cook, clean, interact with authority etc. Or at least I certainly did. I recall the mess I made of my first years at public school. BUt those same skills have made it far easier for me ever since.

 

As I say, I think this is important, because if some poor chap comes from a broken home with no tradition of engagement then how the hell is he to improve? He may hav e no particular emotional problem with authority but not know the language for any encounter but a hostile one.

[Orogun01]

I think part of our disjunction is that I suggest Orogun believes behaving yourself is a neutral state, which one exists in by default. I apologise if I presume too much, but it is certainly the view of others. This is important, because I believe conversely that behaving is an acquired skill married to a correct temperament. You need to be TRAINED to do things like cook, clean, interact with authority etc. Or at least I certainly did. I recall the mess I made of my first years at public school. BUt those same skills have made it far easier for me ever since.

 

As I say, I think this is important, because if some poor chap comes from a broken home with no tradition of engagement then how the hell is he to improve? He may hav e no particular emotional problem with authority but not know the language for any encounter but a hostile one.

Not quite my belief but close. I believe that there is a range of normalcy and civic behavior and that it covers all relatively well adjusted people. Some of them non violent offenders even, and like you said you need to be TRAINED for everything. So there must be some form of conditioning yourself for murder, even if someone were to commit the act they don't

tend to develop a dependence or taste for killing. I would count the rare cases as an extreme side of the spectrum and say that if removed from an environment which promotes violent behavior they will be able to successfully rehabilitate.

 

BTW, good manners aren't a requisite for good will or intentions. A poor chap might not now how to properly behave but he can still do good actions and be good willed in his own way. Lack of proper education is not a cause, it adds to the problem but is not the main cause.

[Walsingham]

Interesting counterpoint which I will need time to digest.

[Orogun01]

Interesting counterpoint which I will need time to digest.

That's okay, this is kind of becoming the "once a day" post thread.

[Walsingham]

Interesting counterpoint which I will need time to digest.

That's okay, this is kind of becoming the "once a day" post thread.

 

I have trouble with numbers.

[Raithe]

To go with the quotage rather then any opinion

 

"Human nature is bad. Good is a human product... A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced before it is made straight ; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual and moral principles."

[Walsingham]

To go with the quotage rather then any opinion

 

"Human nature is bad. Good is a human product... A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced before it is made straight ; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual and moral principles."

 

And the quote is from...?

[Raithe]

classical chinese thought.. otherwise known as Sun Tzu.

[Walsingham]

classical chinese thought.. otherwise known as Sun Tzu.

 

Well, that's embarassing.

[Raithe]

Well I nearly said Confucious before double-checking So don't be too embarassed.

[Walsingham]

What's really embrassing is that I'd been reading Sun tzu two days ago when I made the original point about leadership being an acceptance that other people play a part in an individual's behaviour.

[Orogun01]

To go with the quotage rather then any opinion

 

"Human nature is bad. Good is a human product... A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced before it is made straight ; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual and moral principles."

Sorry I make it a point to not take advise on human nature from the guy that wrote the book on war. Oh, and if good is a human product and bad it's counterpart then they are both products. That's why ethics are so sketchy