This is sort of inspired by the Van Tuong thread, and partly inspired by past discussions on related topics.

What should the role of prisons be, rehabilitate, punish, protect society from dangerous people, protect the dangerous from themselves, a hybrid, or something else entirely? Is there a prison system that has fullfilled it's role correctly?

In addition to the standard prisons most people in the US are aware of I've run across some other models, an Australian prison where speaking was forbidden, the only time inmates could vocalize was during hymnns at the mandatory church meetings, the belief being the same as a time out for a child, that they must spend serious time reflecting on their actions. There's a "tent prison" in Arizona where there are no luxuries whatsoever, able-bodied prisoners work constantly, etc. Feel free to post links to obscure systems, information on whether they woked at their stated goals would be nice, but isn't entirely needed (after all, it can usually be found with a bit of research and help from google).

[ 12-01-2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

For me, the primary purpose of prison must be to protect the citizens from future actions of a criminal.

Motives like revenge, punishment, rehabilitation should all be secondary to this IMO.

I did watch a massive four hour documentary once comparing and contrasting different child prisons across the world, from argentina, the US, UK, Holland etc etc.

The UK child prison system was really cushy - they had more gadgets in their rooms than I ever did as a child and reoffending rates were high. South American prisons were utterly pointless and horrendous. Incarceration was usually an endless cycle due to the abject poverty that the children lives in and therefore served no purpose whatsoever.

The second-best scheme for rehabilitation was actually an American boot camp. Whilst they're usually no different to standard child prisons, this one was very different and had cut reoffending rates to below 20% IIRC by offering extensive support after the prisoner had left.

The best was in a European country, not one of the old guard either. It was possibly Holland or a relatively new joiner. Their reoffending rates were something stupid, like 2%. The prisoners were allowed to leave, unsupervised, during the day for apprentiships that were arranged for them. They were also paid a token salary. None of the prisoners escaped because they recognised how much better their life was going to be if they stuck it out. Extensive support was also provided for after they left and took up jobs - they could return to the prison and seek help if ever they were in difficulties.

If the purpose of prison is rehabilitation then this would indicate that a vindictive prison regime is not going to be successful in this regard.

A vindictive prison system (like the one in Arazona) does appeal to the notion of justice and is of course popular, but there is no evidence to suggest that it cuts reoffending rates (that I know about anyway).

The decision about which you go to would probably therefore be a simple cost benefit analysis: cost of repeated reoffending (but cheaper prison in short-run) vs the cost of a more comprehensive prison regime that led to a drop in reoffending and thus might be cheaper in the long run. Plus the societal benefit of creating 'better citizens' would need to be taken into account.

The prison is meant to isolate criminals from normal people. To protect civilians from criminals, as shamrock said it. In my opinion, Australia was pretty succesful. Ship them all somewhere else. Sadly, Australia is full of non-criminals nowdays, and we've run out of continents.

Personally, I'm not too sure taht prison stops people from reoffending. If it's a "nice" prision, it could be better than their lives outside, so they'll want to go back. And if it's a "nasty" prision, there's always going to be people complaining taht it's inhumane.
I'm not too sure atht prisions can win.

Here's a couple of articles about the tent city prison, the truth or fiction article mentions lower drug addiction rates of inmates leaving, and an acreditted high school in the prison:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/miracopjail.htm
http://www.snopes.com/crime/deserts/pink.asp
http://www.mcso.org/submenu.asp?file=tentcity

It is definitely of the punish criminals mindset, establishing conditions that make it very undesirable to return, the second article however is the only one I've seen that actually mentions recidivism rates... not actual stats about reoffenders. my research also turned up that apparently most of the inmates are first time offenders, of typically non-violent crimes.

We do have Antarctica...

IMO one cannot consider the role of prison without taking into account the role of law.

Why do we need laws? Essentially to regulate the behaviour of people in society. Without laws, without enforcement of laws, society would be anarchic.

This is where prisons come in - as punishment for persons who break the law. It needs to be harsh so that a prison sentence acts as a deterrence.

That said, prisons should also aim to rehabilitate & assist prisoners to reintegrate into society. Ex-convicts face many obstacles, a key one being the stigma associated with being an ex-con. Not many employers are willing to give a person who has served a prison sentence a chance, for example. Some countries have a "name & shame" policy for people convicted of certain offenses. All these act as a huge obstacle for a person who wants to go straight.

We should also recognise that not all prisoners are alike. There are some who are genuinely remorseful for their crimes; there are others who are "hard core".

Hence a prison should serve the following objectives:

a. Rehabilitation & help the offender integrate into society.
b. For those who refuse to act within accepted norms of behaviour, to keep them out of society to prevent the innocent from being harmed.
c. A tough regime so that those on the borderline can be deterred from committing a crime.

First off great subject Morgeruat , the failure of normal prisons is a disgrace IMO and helps fester the send em to jail longer/ hang em' high solution because jail does not work as well as it should. But first a couple of pointers....

That Australian prison you mention is 'Port Arthur', a convict prison of which I have visited the ruins .... last used in about 1877 [img]tongue.gif[/img]

http://www.portarthur.org.au/


We do have Antarctica... </font>[/QUOTE]Australia ‘owns’ most of Antarctica and sending prisoners there, while it may sound funny, might just ire the general populace of OZ ;)

Mate [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I could not agree more, but the question is why do prisons fail so badly at step 'A'

And why do prisoner review boards (insert your countries version) fail. Judges, being privy to the facts and if unhindered by the influence of politics, usually get the sentence correct only for some unelected, unaccountable asswipe to release a convict years early so undermining steps 'B' and 'C'

We do have Antarctica... </font>[/QUOTE]Antarctica is too cold and desolate. It would cost too much to build a colony there. They couldn't produce their own food or their own energy, and in addition to that, the ice is too unstable in most places. Buildings just get covered in snow and sometimes fall to the ocean.