The Norwegian system seems to work better than ours-
But in general I would listen to experts, not just make a penal code based on how I imagined such things work in the real world.
We’re obviously discussing a release unfriendly regime and locked up criminals by definition can’t reoffend.America has a large scale life means life without parole often applied to relatively non violent crimes just the same as violent ones.
That’s the point you are missing.
By that logic it’s a too relaxed release regime which is the problem.
More crims need to be locked up for longer.
Which then conflicts with the humanity of those of us who actually have a conscience in that regard.
It’s a very nasty difficult subject because it’s based on the worst nasty human base instincts.
Which is why we generally don’t throw the ■■■■■■■ perpetrators of the worst crimes with the families of their victims armed with chain saws.
Define locking up ?.
We’re obviously discussing life means life without parole or locked up for long enough for parole and release and reoffending rates after to be moot.
As for America the comparison would be South Africa not Norway.Bearing in mind the difference in demographic and we all know that the US offender demographic reflects a similar one as that of South Africa.
Someone locked up until late middle age let alone the age of 70 or 75 isn’t going to be a large reoffender risk.
It’s all very inhumane scary zb on all sides and I would at least prefer my option to be put on the table.
Except…that is not true.
The USA has one of the highest rates of incarceration, and also one of the worst homicide rates.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but locking more people up does not lead to less violent crime.
Look at the facts and figures out there. Don’t deal in what you imagine should happen.
Yes.
Logic has very little to do with human behaviour.
Common sense deterrents do not apply to irrational criminal behaviour.
more fantasy. the reason america has a high number of “lifers” apart from murder is they have a three strike policy ie if you commit three felony’s its automatic life sentence. In other words if your too thick to learn that you cant commit crimes then your locked up for life because america understands you cant educate pork its one of the few things they have managed to get right.
Where is the fantasy?
It has (in some states) the death penalty. It has harsher prison sentences than many other countries, and including as you point out the “3 strikes” rules.
Yet the USA still has a high rate of homicides.
Doesn’t that suggest that strong punishment does not stop violence?
Having lots of 3 strikes prisoners would be a sign that rehabilitation is not effective in the US system.
That proves it is a failure as a deterrent.
that wasnt aimed at you.
the thing with america is most of them are blithering idiots. couple that with their gun laws and you have what you have. I visited a friend over there and was shocked that she had a gun causally lying in a draw. My father on the other hand had a rifle he had to have it locked in a gun safe with three different keys to it and the ammo had to be in a separate locked container that was fixed down and it all had to be signed off by the chief of the local constabulary. All this to say stupidity and weapons dont mix.
nope just proves people are too dim to learn or dont want to work for what they have.
The issue with the three strike system is it can be one criminal act i belive. ie if you have seen the movie murder in the first i forget the details but its somewhere along the lines of the guy breaks into a bakery that doubles as a post office and steals a loaf of bread and a dollar out the tip jar because it was a post office it counts as a felony and 2 counts of theft thats his three strikes.
This day and age there is no need for that though there is enough help out there. its just the stupidity and arrogance that causes it. Ill give an example in the form of a question.
IF you stole a car and put false plates on it (also stolen) and you came back to the hostel where you were living and there were three police cars blocking it in. would you disappear quick and come back later when they were gone or would you go upto the copper and ask them to move their car so you can get out.
The person this is based on chose the later and was surprised when they arrested him
If the offenders are “too dim”, then that may be the reason 3 strikes doesn’t work. It does not show that 3 strikes does work.
You have proved my point.
Really? Based on what?
I think not.
Varies according to state but needs to be persistant or repeat offences. Not multiple charges for one event. Could be a second crime, but not the first.
And the “life sentence” could be eligible for remission.
The name “3 strikes” is just a name, it seems, not an accurate description.
America has a very different culture to us, and as Michael Moore demonstrated in “Bowling for Columbine”, across the border in Canada they have as many guns as the US, but Canada does not have the same level of problems.
But it is clear that simply having longer, harsher sentences, in and of itself is not an answer to reducing the occurence of crime.
You’re missing the point Franglais.
Only released convicts can reoffend if they aren’t released they obviously can’t commit crimes.
The argument is simply one of death penalty v locked up for life without release or as close as makes no difference.
Or the third option of at least giving anyone sentenced to that a humane quick way out.
Which solves the reoffending issue and the cost issue and the question of incarceration unarguably creating mental torture in many cases.
By humane I don’t mean by force not choice and having their cervical spine snapped which like beheading obviously leaves the brain and hearing and eyesight functioning for up to minutes after.
Or fried alive in the electric chair.
Or tied to a table and subjected to intravaenous poisoning.
Or poisoned with toxic gas.
Those needless methods of execution and many admitting that incarceration is to use mental torture as a method of retribution, all says more about them than the criminals.
I think it’s actually 3 misdemeanors = a felony ?.
America has a brutal penal system.
So, it ends up with people on life sentences because they have stolen two or three times?
With the option of choosing death?
When in some cases, education, help with addictions etc, might have broken the cycle, society pays for decades of incarceration.
Perverse in the extreme.
Charles Bronson springs to mind.
1 Like
The thresholds as to what defines incarceration, risk of reoffending, level of offence including level of violence if any, suitable for release without risk of violent reoffending etc etc, obviously all comes before the point of the choice between long term or considerable lockdown, v hypoxia if so chosen by the person and only the person facing that choice.
Obviously we have a problem regarding where that bar is set before we even get to the issue of ‘life’ or effectively life behind bars, v call it a day and check out.
But what is certain is that the needless savagery of the death penalty as we know it, is as morally unacceptable as deliberately destroying anyone’s mental health by incarceration, for the motive of retribution.
I think I’ve described the acceptable third option in that regard.
Of course, not everyone thinks the 3-Strikes law is unfair. More than 60% of the voters who voted voted for 3-Strikes. However, a lot of people who voted for 3-Strikes were not aware of what it really means and does. This is not surprising since it is very poorly drafted, very long, and very technical. The campaign literature in support of 3-Strikes talked about putting repeat rapists, robbers, and murderers away for a long time. It didn’t talk about putting petty thieves and drug users away for 25-years-to-life. As a result of the realization by some that 3-Strikes is much harsher than they originally thought and that it costs a whole lot of money ($20+ thousand/year) to keep people in prison, certain members of the California Legislature are starting to rethink 3-Strikes to a certain extent. There have been proposals to limit its application to cases where the new offense is a “serious” or “violent” crime.
You seem to be forgetting that criminals in jail frequently commit further crimes whilst inside. Or does that not count in the Carrysphere?
Carryfast, the comedian that keeps giving. It’s like binge watching Smith and Jones Head to Head, or Frank Spencer. 
Another way at describing it
Butch cassidy and the sundance kid
Its ground hog day they just keep jumping off the cliff
Rein it in a bit Franglais ffs man, you are coming across again as a complete wise ass in your usual condescending way.
How many hardened habitual criminals/prisoners will go all out to react to education, counselling and rehabilitation?
At an educated guess 1,.at a push 2, out of every 10?..maybe fewer.
In a nirvanic world where everything is rosy, and the birds sing sweetly,. maybe they would enter into the spirit of rehabilitation, leave the nick,.and open an art and craft shop or something, and all live happilly ever after, never to offend again.
I have came across a couple of career criminals in my time, absolute faces you would not want to get on the wrong side of, .and I would say the chances are somewhere between hope and Bob Hope of them EVER being rehabilitated,… no matter how many verses of ‘Michael row the boat ashore’ you trach them at one of your counselling sessions.
Dare I use the phrase ‘Real World stuff’ to you AGAIN, without causing offence?
You mean like Mr.Bridger in the Italian job.
I doubt it.But you’re the one making the case for default no option long term incarceration ( obviously after differentiating serious violent crime from shop lifting etc ) not me.