There are four types of people in prisons ;
1) The wicked - eg evil people who chose to commit evil crimes and most of these should have been hung a long time ago thereby saving hundreds of millions of pounds a year
2) The feckless - those idiots that get drunk and do stupid things - they should be punished but humanely. They should be held in prisons and made to work as punishment, but also to allow them to be re-integrated into society.
3) The weak - those drunks, drug addicts, drug addicted prostitutes and the mentally ill. Also the 1 in 4 prisoners that are ex-soldiers suffering from PTSD etc. Most of these should be housed in mental hospitals and not prisons.
4) Proffessional crooks - those who chose crime as a career. These people deserve to go into prisons, but ones that use them as labour on work projects - so they pay society back for their crimes.
The reason why young people go from minor criminality to a career in crime is because of the failure of the state to intervene at the start of their offending with Corporal Punishment.
This is why we MUST bring back Corporal Punishment.
Corporal Punishment - the birch and the stocks - work.
They inflict pain and humiliation, which prohibits future offending and assists in the altruisation process of forcing criminals to understand the nature of the pain, distress, humiliaton and suffering they inflict on others.
Corporal Punishment should be used for the first three offences.
After committing three low level anti-social behaviour offences where the birch has been used then the individual goes straight into a prison designed to cater for
proffessional career criminals - where they are forced to work.
Those assessed with drug and alcohol issues must be placed on Compulsory Rehabilitation Programmes in prisons established to del with drunks and drug addicts - with weekly drugs monitoring when out of prison and they must be housed in prisons with regimes set up specifically for offenders with drugs or alcohol issues.
Those prisoners with mental health issues must go to special prisons for people with metal health issues.
The 'one size fits all' model of prisons is causing a social crisis.
The mentally ill in the prison system are getting sicker.
The criminals are corrupting the feckless and abusing the weak.
The people with drug and alcohol problems are not being treated.
The 1 in 4 ex-soldiers are not having any treatment for their mental health issues.
There needs to be different prison systems established, not just one.
One system finds and treats the mentally ill, one system the drug and drink problem people, the other treats ex-servicemen and the others are established for professional criminals and the feckless.
Each consists of different regimes for each different ste of people.
When they are arrested they are assessed as to the nature of their crime.
If it is a drug addict then they go straight into the system designed for drug addicts, with special prisons and special prison regimes.
Those who are gangsters committing crimes for money then they go straight into the criminal system.
This system also applies when they come out of prison - and consists of post-prison monitoring eg weekly drugs tests, rehab and day release, accomodation and treatment programmes etc etc if required.
The one size fits all model of prison is designed to profit only the corporate Prison-Industrial Block - it is not designed to discover peoples problems, treat them and release them back into society with support if required.
The death penalty is used to save money and remove from the system those who will never be released for the public safety and who cannot be treated.
They must be removed.
The feckless must be discouraged from future offending with corporal punishment.
The criminal is only discouraged from future offending via the death penalty.
Entering the Rehabiliation and Prison System is a last resort.
If they presist in drug addiction then they must be housed on special work camp prisons, where they work for their keep.
The proffessional criminal also knows that prison = hard graft and repaying society.
That means they work in prisons, on work details or in society on public work projects so the money they earn can support their families and victims.
Within a decade we will have halved the size of the prison system and cut offending by around 90 %.
Now that would be truly a landmark of a Nationalist Government.
Trust the Tories to analyse the problem, but then fail to discover the solution.
Clarke overturns almost two decades of Tory policy by declaring 'prison doesn't work'
By James Slack
Last updated at 10:46 AM on 30th June 2010
* Comments (511)
* Add to My Stories
Ken Clarke risked grassroots fury today by ripping up the 17-year-old Tory policy that 'prison works'.
In an astonishing speech, the Justice Secretary said that 'warehousing' tens of thousands of convicts every year is 'ineffectual' - paving the way for a massive cut in record prison numbers.
Mr Clarke added: 'Just banging up more and more people for longer without actively seeking to change them is what you would expect of Victorian England.'
Wormwood Scrubs
'Victorian England': Ken Clarke says locking up more and more offenders in prisons like Wormwood Scrubs is 'ineffectual'
It marks a massive U-turn from the Tories' election promise to create 5,000 more prison places than the Labour government.
It also drives a nail through the ideology which has guided Conservative thinking since 1993, when Michael Howard memorably told his party's annual conference:
'Prison works. It ensures that we are protected from murderers, muggers and rapists.'
More...
* JACK STRAW: Mr Clarke and the Lib Dems are wrong. Prison DOES work - and I helped prove it
* Sanctimonious dwarf! Enraged minister insults Speaker Bercow after rebuke in the Commons
Tory backbenchers and party activists are likely to be livid at the decision - which will also enrage police who complain the justice system is already too soft on burglars, thieves and other offenders.
Mr Clarke had already suggested millions could be saved from the £2.2billion prisons budget by jailing fewer offenders.
Ken Clarke
U-turn: Mr Clarke's comments are sure to drive a stake through the heart of Tory policy on prisons
But his comments today mark an ideological rather than simply a practical shift in Tory thinking on sentencing.
Critics will say he is moving closer to the Lib Dem idea of abolishing short prison terms - and allowing almost 60,000 offenders to avoid jail each year.
Mr Clarke rejected Labour claims that his approach was at odds with strong backing by Mr Cameron during the General Election campaign for short sentences for vandalism and disorder.
Tory leader David Cameron cited his mother's experience as a magistrate as he criticised the sentencing policy of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg - now his coalition partner and Deputy PM - during one of the televised leaders' debates.
'When someone smashes up the bus stop, when someone repeatedly breaks the law, when someone is found fighting on a Friday or Saturday night, as a magistrate, you've got to have that power for a short prison sentence when you've tried the other remedies,' Mr Cameron said.
'I am not at direct odds with my leader. You do need short sentences for the kind of nuisance criminal who keeps being a recidivist,' Mr Clarke told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
Increased prisoner numbers had 'not done much about' problems such as vandalism and "loutish" behaviour though, he said.
Shadow justice secretary Jack Straw accused Mr Clarke of a return to the 'hand-wringing" approach to crime in existence before Mr Howard's regime.
'He (Howard) deserves credit for turning the tide, as does the opposition leader at that time, Tony Blair, who encapsulated the need for a balanced policy with his call to be 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'.
'Now, though, in the crazy world of coalition government, Kenneth Clarke shows he has learnt nothing about fighting crime in the time since he was in charge of prisons 17 years ago,' Mr Straw wrote in today's Mail.
'Labour home secretaries since 1997, including me, sought to strengthen this approach. And it has made a big difference to the peace and tranquillity of local communities.
'A key factor in reducing crime has been the increased number of offenders sentenced to prison," he wrote.
'Does anyone seriously believe that crime would have come down and stayed down without these extra prison places?'
Mr Clarke told a London audience that he is 'amazed' that the prison population has doubled to 85,000 since he was Home Secretary in the early 1990s.
He added: 'It costs more to put someone in prison for a year than it does to send a boy to Eton - on average £38,000.
'The taxpayer is providing keep and accommodation - albeit in grossly overcrowded conditions - at expensive hotel prices for 85,000 people.' graphic
Prison governors and probation officers have already called for short sentences of a year or less to be scrapped, and replaced with community punishments.
This would put 8,500 more criminals on the streets just as police numbers are expected to fall - infuriating the public and potentially leading to a rise in crime.
But Mr Clarke told an audience at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies that it is time to stop playing the 'numbers game', which measures success in terms of spending and how many prisoners are locked up.
He said: 'The consequence is that more and more offenders have been warehoused in outdated facilities, and we spend vast amounts of public money on prison.
'But no proper thought has been given to whether this is really the best and most effective way of protecting the public against crime.
'So I ask this: how do we actually go about improving the safety and protecting the property of honest citizens in the most cost-effective way?
'I do not doubt that certain forms of crime have fallen in recent years. But have they fallen because more people are in prison? Or because there was less temptation to live by crime during a period of economic boom?
'And do the public feel any safer as a result? I think not. Crime remains one of their top three concerns - up there with immigration and the economy.
'A great mass of grave academic and social research has produced arguments on both sides. There is no simple, conclusive answer. You cannot prove it either way. Prison is the necessary punishment for many offenders.
'But does ever more prison for ever more offenders always produce better results for the public? We have many more people in prison than many other countries with lower crime levels. We have one of the highest crime rates in Western Europe, and one of the highest prison populations.'
Mr Clarke's use of the language of the prison reform lobby - in particular the word 'warehousing' - is certain to raise eyebrows.
Mr Straw had set a target of 96,000 prison places by 2014. In opposition, the Tories pledged to exceed this by taking the total to more than 100,000 for the first time.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290715/Ken-Clarke-overturns-2-decades-Tory-policy-declaring-prison-doesnt-work.html#ixzz0sLi4eH7O
4 comments:
Most criminals are poor, we must try to ensure that there is more to be earned in working with and for society than against it.
Punishment correctly applied will work but there must be incentives.
Currently I think most criminals work on the following basis, why should I work 40 hrs a week when I can break into 2 houses a week and earn just as much.
This would be another benefit of reducing the working week, why risk prison, being with my family and friends, when for a couple of days vwork, I could have a decent house, car, go on holiday, spend time with my kids etc.
It's the pleasure and pain principle, going straight should be made a pleasurable experirence.
Not by rewarding ex cons, that's just an incentive itself to become a convict so I can then claim the reward for going straight for a few months.
But by making work and productivness itself rewarding, currently we have a system where our people are virtual slaves, working 40 hrs a week just to keep up with the real crooks who are stealing their wealth in fines, charges etc just as fast as it can be made.
To be honest, the way things are, your average petty criminal is most likely only doing whats best for him and his family, the entire system is corrupt to its core.
Michael Savage, Banned in the UK
Cant Agree more with the ideas proposed
and of course the returning of immigrants to their own country after reparations , who have offended in this country
Well said Lee,
I also feel we need a whole new set of laws and enforements for the politically criminal, treason and such.
at the moment the politicians get away with all kinds with inpunity, until that is addressed then we will contue the corrupt politics we know too well.
The BNP should set out defined rules and punishments for politicians that sell the people out.
sure there are no doubt some laws in place already that get abused, but it is time the BNP had a politician law set in stone as policy so people can see it up front.
also Lee i think you overlooked the stripping of assetts to repay society and make crime not pay, this will include stripping of assetts from the whole family who would have otherwise benfited and urged the offender on for their own benefit, also including the family means that criminal activity is less likely to be passed on generationally as the harsh reality of having every stripped fro you for being a criminal will serve to reinforce that crime does not pay, which is much of the incentive removed and would also mean that people such as partners would also shun criminals and urge their children not to get involved.
adding in this element lee I think you are right in that 90% of crime would cease, not too keen on the flogging system as while it `may` be effective in practice, it does not sell the party or the party image, it makes us look a little barbaric and sadistic which is something we need to avoid regardless of merit, the other measures listed should be more than enough.
Adrian,
you make some good points and yes the crime system is the last in a long line of other systems that simply indacate your other systems have failed and they need to be looked at more so than the criminal system itself, the causes of crime rathyer than the punishment is always the place to start and as we all know the BNP already have that issue delt with.
But i do feel we need to be carefull not to become appologists for the `poor` criminals, as most `poor` criminals ususally victimise other poor people, which drags the whole of society down, also there were times when crime even amoungst the very poorest of people who faced hunger and cold on a daily basis was extremly low, so i think we really need to leave the poor issue in crime out of the equasion as it just helps to justify it, if people were going hungry or homeless then yes there is a justification but by and large people do not, but you are right about the role model society plays and as said the BNP would tackle that also.
But I do appreciate you angle of not using the poor and afflicted as the scapegoat and whipping boy as is often the case and to some extend this has to be addressed and counter balanced before we become a truly barbaric third world slum with gated communities for the elites, with the rest reliant of charity and crime as things decend even further than they are.
Post a Comment