"It's just a washing machine"

[Belbo]

First of all, I said nothing in this thread about sterilization, until jaycee brought it up. If I remember correctly, the context of that discussion had nothing to do with prisons.

The exploding collar, was from a movie, Zone 13...I believe. If you don't like that, how about an electric shock like a taser? It is just another form of fence to keep prisoners from escaping. I have never said my suggestions were set in stone. Maybe different collars for different crimes?

You cannot cure mental illness, as far as I know. Treatment , maybe. Not everyone with mental illness commits crimes.
Taking drugs and drinking alcohol is a choice.Before the first drink or consumption of the drug is an action. Therefore, if someone decides to partake, when they know they have a problem, they have made their choice.If they commit a crime, they face the consequences. Being on welfare is also an active decision. Most people have a job.Get one.
Not everyone who is a drug user, alcholic on centerlink commits crimes.There will always be a percentage of the population who will, no matter what you do. That's a given. I did not make this stuff up, I read it from the http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/ncphom...rs_returning_to_the_community_b1-Introduction

Since this afternoon, I did some googling, and it seems Julia Gillard has proposed/ started a pilot where 11,000 teenage mums will be cut off centerlink if they do not go back and finish their grade 12 within a certain time period.

Drug and alcohol treatment have very limited success.
Don't even both wasting taxpayers money.

How would the rest of the world view Australia if they emplemented my suggestions. I think it would be held up as a model on how to make a safe country. If that means housing mentally ill murderers, rapists, pedophiles away from society, what is wrong with that? No one suggested flogging, water torture,or being put on the racks. Working for their keep, and what is wrong with that?
No you are not better than this.All you are doing is putting the guilty criminals welfare ahead of law abiding people.

That's cool.

Would only suggest you don't go into, like, advertising.

 

[jaycee]

retaliatory for what, your response was inappropriate rude and irrelevant to the the post quoted
no response to the imaginary post request.

I assume the last line, is your refusal of thought
that is very sad,

The sadnes will pass soon enough, hang in there
I hope the Nay side does not entirely refuse,
some of the best ideas of history have been last ditch efforts​

Me too, me too

 

[Melbournian]

I would be interested in hearing about conditions inside shanghai prison. Do they get to watch tv and play games all day?

in indonesian prisons, if you have the cash, yeah xbox, playstation and badminton and the indostar (foxtel version).

 

[dan c]

misquoted Danny,
misquoting and misrepresentation- an annoying attempt to reduce an opponent's argument by
[Edit] embellishing [/edit]
its content, very politically astute, & somewhat immoral

PRISONER A is a single entity, 40% of him cannot reoffend, since that would severely hinder his right - to avoid being cut into chunks -​

The post refers only to the reoffenses of a single person,
40% recidivism rate, and I have no comment on the accuracy of that, it is not part of this discussion, reflects very badly upon the current system
nobody would willingly accept 40% of medical patients getting the same illness 2, 3, 4, the rest of their life? times after being "cured",
would there be an outcry if the doctor's schedule of treatment was altered each time by some unqualified latte sipper,
The same outrage should appply
society is not being protected

Who's trying to misrepresent? The average rate of re-offending is 40%, or 2 jail terms out of every 5. To use an example like Kathryn did of one prisoner reoffending TWICE does not accurately represent the facts.

Kathryn's rate of reoffending used is 200%, or 5 TIMES the actual figure. Again, who's misrepresenting facts here?

Re-offending of a single person is what the statisticians would call a 'small sample size' and basically worthless. To get a truer indication of the cost, a larger sample would be needed, to more accurately show what is going on. But I think you know that.

Yes, nobody would accept 40% of hospital patients not being cured. But what does the hospital system have to do with prisons?

And don't call me Danny.

 

[Ideo]

What's the go with the weird justification on your posts anyway Bob? Makes 'em hard to read.