Prisons - for rehabilitation or punishment

[Memnoch]

I saw a similar thread in the cricket forum I post in and thought it would be an interesting discussion. This terrorist Anders Breivik might end up in one of these "luxury Norwegian prisons", where the goal seems to be more to rehabilitate than punish. For example, their newest prison has a sound studio, jogging trails, and a 2BR house that inmates can use to host their families during visits. The cells have flat-screen TVs and minifridges, and share living rooms with wraparound sofas and other amenities. The cells don't have bars on the windows. And its not like the people incarcerated are there for unpaid speeding tickets - they include those convicted for armed robbery, rape, etc.

Compare this to some of the prisons here in the US and there is really no comparison.

But is it working? Norway has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe, and recidivism is at 20%, compared to over 50% for the UK and 67% for the US.

That said, Saudi Arabia also has a very low crime rate - tends to happen when you chop people's hands and heads off when they do the wrong thing.

This is what a Norwegian prison is like, according to Time.

By the time the trumpets sound, the candles have been lit and the salmon platters garnished. Harald V, King of Norway, enters the room, and 200 guests stand to greet him. Then a chorus of 30 men and women, each wearing a blue police uniform, launches into a spirited rendition of "We Are the World." This isn't cabaret night at Oslo's Royal Palace. It's a gala to inaugurate Halden Fengsel, Norway's newest prison. Ten years and 1.5 billion Norwegian kroner ($252 million) in the making, Halden is spread over 75 acres (30 hectares) of gently sloping forest in southeastern Norway. The facility boasts amenities like a sound studio, jogging trails and a freestanding two-bedroom house where inmates can host their families during overnight visits. Unlike many American prisons, the air isn't tinged with the smell of sweat and urine. Instead, the scent of orange sorbet emanates from the "kitchen laboratory" where inmates take cooking courses. "In the Norwegian prison system, there's a focus on human rights and respect," says Are Hoidal, the prison's governor. "We don't see any of this as unusual." Halden, Norway's second largest prison, with a capacity of 252 inmates, opened on April 8. It embodies the guiding principles of the country's penal system: that repressive prisons do not work and that treating prisoners humanely boosts their chances of reintegrating into society. "When they arrive, many of them are in bad shape," Hoidal says, noting that Halden houses drug dealers, murderers and rapists, among others. "We want to build them up, give them confidence through education and work and have them leave as better people." Countries track recidivism rates differently, but even an imperfect comparison suggests the Norwegian model works. Within two years of their release, 20% of Norway's prisoners end up back in jail. In the U.K. and the U.S., the figure hovers between 50% and 60%. Of course, a low level of criminality gives Norway a massive advantage. Its prison roll lists a mere 3,300, or 69 per 100,000 people, compared with 2.3 million in the U.S., or 753 per 100,000 — the highest rate in the world. Design plays a key role in Halden's rehabilitation efforts. "The most important thing is that the prison looks as much like the outside world as possible," says Hans Henrik Hoilund, one of the prison's architects. To avoid an institutional feel, exteriors are not concrete but made of bricks, galvanized steel and larch; the buildings seem to have grown organically from the woodlands. And while there is one obvious symbol of incarceration — a 20-ft. (6 m) concrete security wall along the prison's perimeter — trees obscure it, and its top has been rounded off, Hoilund says, "so it isn't too hostile." The cells rival well-appointed college dorm rooms, with their flat-screen TVs and minifridges. Designers chose long vertical windows for the rooms because they let in more sunlight. There are no bars. Every 10 to 12 cells share a living room and kitchen. With their stainless-steel countertops, wraparound sofas and birch-colored coffee tables, they resemble Ikea showrooms. Halden's greatest asset, though, may be the strong relationship between staff and inmates. Prison guards don't carry guns — that creates unnecessary intimidation and social distance — and they routinely eat meals and play sports with the inmates. "Many of the prisoners come from bad homes, so we wanted to create a sense of family," says architect Per Hojgaard Nielsen. Half the guards are women — Hoidal believes this decreases aggression — and prisoners receive questionnaires asking how their experience in prison can be improved. There's plenty of enthusiasm for transforming lives. "None of us were forced to work here. We chose to," says Charlott-Renee Sandvik Clasen, a music teacher in the prison and a member of Halden's security-guard chorus. "Our goal is to give all the prisoners — we call them our pupils — a meaningful life inside these walls." It's warmth like that, not the expensive television sets, that will likely have the most lasting impact. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz0n9t8l6FT

Discuss. Is there merit to this approach? Or should we toss these crims into ADX Florence or Pelican Bay to rot, or shorten them Saudi style?

[Sparhawk]

Of course it has merit - it works in Norway, Denmark and a large portion of Europe in general ( France and Great Brittan possibly not included - I have no idea how their prisons are ).

I think it is really important to observe prisoners in different light compared to what we want to do to them;

Rehabilitation is not for all prisoners, but it is certainly for the majority of the prisoners. A murder that takes place in affect is not likely to be repeated unless the same circumstances are present - thus rehabilitation takes place to teach the prisoner to either avoid the circumstances or to tackle them in a different manner than bringing out an axe and chopping his wife and her lover to death ( just a gooey example here ).
Rehabilitation is needed for young people caught up in drugs, gangs, crime in general etc - it makes no sense to drop a 21 yr old kid in a hardcore prison for 10 yrs because he sold drugs or joined a gang.

That said there is also the element that does not need rehabilitation - they are the people who are simply TOO DANGEROUS to be among other people - prisoners like Anders Breivik from Norway, Peter Lundin from Denmark or the serial killers in the US. ( there are many others... ) and yet even though these people will NEVER be let out of jail - there needs to be a kind of compassion or rather humanity in our treatment of them. Why? because making our treatment of prisoners inhuman is punishable if a single guard does it - but if its done by the system then it is not responsible?

The system is accountable just as the single guard is.


We are left with the question - is a luxury cell a bad thing or a good thing?

I think the cells vary a lot more than what times are reporting - keep in mind that media often needs the chock effect to sell.

In Denmark a cell is typically a 3 meter high room - with a small barred window in the top of the cell, a VERY simple bed and a desk and then there will be a tv. In case of long prison sentences the prisoner can have a PS3, Xbox or whatever to play on - but not access to the internet etc.
If a person is mentally ill like Peter Lundin ( who killed his mother in the US and then after serving his sentence came back to Denmark and then killed his new GF and her two small children ) The system is set up to ( in this case ) protect the rest of us from him - he cannot be rehabilitated and therefore he is locked away ( there is no timeframe on his punishment he is under the care of the system instead ).

[Azred]

It doesn't depend upon what kind of prison system you have; rather, it depends upon the individual person. Some people decide that "enough is enough" and get out, straighten out their lives, and never go back; as an example, consider Danny Trejo--he went from prison to a successful movie career. There are others--the career criminals--who get out, commit more crimes, get sentenced, serve their time, get out, and repeat the process over and over until they die or wind up being given a life sentence.

Every now and then we get stories of minimum security Federal prisons that have libraries, swimming pools, or golf course access and we roll our eyes because we don't think of that as "prison". To us, prison means thick concrete walls, bars on everything, a rec yard or workout room, and knifings in the lunch hall.

As far as Saudi Arabia having a low crime rate because of extreme punishments...no system of laws in the history of mankind has ever deterred crime. Even if you make "public execution" the punishment for every crime you will still have people breaking the law because they are betting that they won't get caught.

This guy blew up a building to misdirect law enforcement and emergency responders, dressed like a cop, and then shot teenagers at close range because he thought this would jump-start some anti-Mulsim conflict. He meets the definition of "terrorist" so I don't think he deserves rehabilitation--put him in a windowless 8x10 cell for the rest of his life and let him regret his actions. As another possibility, exile him to some island then drop off weekly food rations--this would be less expensive than keeping him in prison and it would remove him from civilized society without resorting to the death penalty (since many people don't support it).

[Ladyzekke]

I agree with Azred. It depends on the individual and the crime. Some can be rehabilitated, but the serial killer types I don't think ever can. Any serial killer shoud stay locked up and deserve actual punishment, which means no big TVs, etc. Of course some would say just being locked up for the rest of your life is enough punishment, regardless of the amenities (sp?). But I don't feel that way. If you get big TVs, pools, jogging paths, decent meals, etc., life probably isn't so bad. I mean, you don't have to pay any bills, or work, you can hang out with friends (if you aren't in isolation), free varieties of entertainment, no cooking or cleaning, etc. There are many good, decent, law abiding citizens who are poor who don't have it that good!

A little off topic, but it reminds me of a month ago, in our local news, a homeless man hurt himself and robbed a bank (just asked for a dollar) just so he could go to jail and get healthcare (and probably shelter, food, etc.)

[Sparhawk]

You say it depends on the individual - but a penal system cannot be individual - it needs to be fair to everyone so that one man who steals a bread for being hungry is not sentenced to 10 years while another stealing the money from his shareholders get off with a slap on the wrist and probation....( simplifying helps here... )

But I do agree to some degree that it would be better with a more subjective system.


My own experience with the US system has to do with a neighbors son who's mom lives in California and therefore he is a US citizen. He was driving to get away from some mexicans that had threatened to shoot him and while speeding ( 110 mph on the freeway ) he lost control of the car - it flipped over the middle section and hit another car killing all four people in it.

He ACCIDENTALLY killed 4 people. - unfortunately it happened as a D.A. was up for re-election or something so he was made an example of - he now serves 97 year - per victim - and they have to be served back2back - which means he would die in prison. He did....in 2006 he was killed by another inmate for jumping over in a line.

This is one of the reasons why I am very critical over the US at times....I love the country and have family there - I visit as often as I can - but sometimes I wanna puke at at self righteous attitude of the system.

[Timber Loftis]

I think prisons are for protection of the society first, punishment second, and rehabilitation third.

First, for those who are too dangerous to be about, we put them away to protect society from them.

Second, a price has to be paid for committing a crime. It's a social debt you owe.

Now, if we want to be fair to people being punished, I see nothing wrong with recognizing that many of them may have committed their crimes for reasons beyond their control. Being poor or falling into the wrong crowd or missing life's little opportunities -- these can all lead to crimes that the person believes are necessary for them to commit. Jean Val Jean stealing a loaf of bread, and all that.

For those people, it is not wrong to give them an opportunity while incarcerated to learn a trade, receive counseling, or otherwise get some assistance so that when their time of punishment ends they have some meaningful opportunity to reintegrate into society. In fact, if we don't give them this, then we are capitulating that they can never do better and that the end of their prison term will only result in an immediate return to crime. That's not defensible.

On the topic of subjectivity, I am all for more of it. It's one of the reasons that mandatory minimums are stupid. I have seen too many judges with their hands tied who have to send someone away on a ridiculous sentence due to a mandatory minimum law, such as 3-strikes, where the crime at hand does not relate to the punishment that is demanded by law.

Also, we use our criminal system in this country to beat down the poor and minorities. It's no secret, and it goes beyond the infamous and laughable "driving while black." If a cop is stopped in traffic in Chicago, there's a greater than 50% chance that he is running the license plate numbers of the cars around him looking for outstanding warrants -- of course he picks the cars being driven by blacks or Mexicans first. I know a black guy, mid-20's, in Iowa who is in for 70ish years for the crime of driving a buddy somewhere. The guy needed a ride to a house, and this guy gave it to him, unaware that he intended to rob it. All the guy did was drive a car there, wait for the guy to return, and take him home. Accomplice! And why was this poor black kid from the South Side of Chicago, who had a chance to go to college, in Iowa? White girlfriend, a nice plump corn-fed blonde thing who's daddy was influential in town (and in the sentencing, of course) and - you guessed it -- hated blacks. I could offer more examples, but one stands out: 1 in 4 black males in this country live in prison.

Inequalities will always abound, and you can never protect people from mistakes or stupid decisions. But, yes, our system could be a whole lot more fair. Hopefully never as "fair" as Europe's, where imo the criminals get off way too easy in many instances.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Ladyzekke A little off topic, but it reminds me of a month ago, in our local news, a homeless man hurt himself and robbed a bank (just asked for a dollar) just so he could go to jail and get healthcare (and probably shelter, food, etc.)

I know that if I found myself homeless and it was winter, I'd go into a local Walgreens and just start acting a fool and making a scene. At least I'd get shelter and warm meals out of the deal. It's a separate and different problem, one that deals with the disparity between how well we treat incarcerated people versus how well we treat people of lacking means.

Side note: I recently watched "The Fighter" with Mark Wahlberg, and his brother, a junkie, goes to jail with the usual teeth problems that junkies have. They tease him when he comes home with a nice full new set of teeth.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis I think prisons are for protection of the society first, punishment second, and rehabilitation third. First, for those who are too dangerous to be about, we put them away to protect society from them. Second, a price has to be paid for committing a crime. It's a social debt you owe. Now, if we want to be fair to people being punished, I see nothing wrong with recognizing that many of them may have committed their crimes for reasons beyond their control. Being poor or falling into the wrong crowd or missing life's little opportunities -- these can all lead to crimes that the person believes are necessary for them to commit. Jean Val Jean stealing a loaf of bread, and all that. For those people, it is not wrong to give them an opportunity while incarcerated to learn a trade, receive counseling, or otherwise get some assistance so that when their time of punishment ends they have some meaningful opportunity to reintegrate into society. In fact, if we don't give them this, then we are capitulating that they can never do better and that the end of their prison term will only result in an immediate return to crime. That's not defensible. On the topic of subjectivity, I am all for more of it. It's one of the reasons that mandatory minimums are stupid. I have seen too many judges with their hands tied who have to send someone away on a ridiculous sentence due to a mandatory minimum law, such as 3-strikes, where the crime at hand does not relate to the punishment that is demanded by law. Also, we use our criminal system in this country to beat down the poor and minorities. It's no secret, and it goes beyond the infamous and laughable "driving while black." If a cop is stopped in traffic in Chicago, there's a greater than 50% chance that he is running the license plate numbers of the cars around him looking for outstanding warrants -- of course he picks the cars being driven by blacks or Mexicans first. I know a black guy, mid-20's, in Iowa who is in for 70ish years for the crime of driving a buddy somewhere. The guy needed a ride to a house, and this guy gave it to him, unaware that he intended to rob it. All the guy did was drive a car there, wait for the guy to return, and take him home. Accomplice! And why was this poor black kid from the South Side of Chicago, who had a chance to go to college, in Iowa? White girlfriend, a nice plump corn-fed blonde thing who's daddy was influential in town (and in the sentencing, of course) and - you guessed it -- hated blacks. I could offer more examples, but one stands out: 1 in 4 black males in this country live in prison. Inequalities will always abound, and you can never protect people from mistakes or stupid decisions. But, yes, our system could be a whole lot more fair. Hopefully never as "fair" as Europe's, where imo the criminals get off way too easy in many instances.

I can go along with that TL.... you can now pick yourself up off the floor