"It's just a washing machine"
- Thread starter tess85
- Start date
Ahh sarcasm, obviously you have a perfect life and have never been accused wrongly.
You said they will never change, closley followed by why even let them out? How is putting someone in a cell for the rest of their life when they are innocent humane?
I agree they should be working, not pumping iron and learning new ways to do dodgy things.
Agree.
Not sure how a soldior is anything like a prison inmate though?
The major way to reduce costs of a prison is to have less prisoners.
That way you can cut staff, food costs, new infrastructure, other supplies etc.
The 'lock em up and throw away the key' strategy is expensive.
I'm just pointing out (using numbers that add up) that reducing prison costs and keeping prisoners in jail for longer are opposing ideas.
So you're saying the revolving door approach is cost effective?
Sure there may be less prisoners, but all you have done is moved them somewhere else. Are you a government worker?
The extra victims, and the effects it has on their lives. The increased insurance premiums for the material good replacement. The drain on the medical services for medical and psychological treatment due to trauma.
The multiple costs to legal aid (not sure if it is called that here) for criminals, prosecuters,police force.
Hmm..I must be missing something here.
Those damn public servants. Like nurses, police officers, firefighters. Absolute good for nothing slackers
And I hate to break it to you, but running a country ain't cheap. In fact, it shouldn't be a profit making exercise. It should be about providing services to the whole society.
Increased sentences are not a deterrent. This has been proven time and time again. The only way it could be is if any person ever convicted of a crime (and lets include lovely cuddly white collar crime in this) is locked up and never released. And that would only cost even more money.
Perhaps a more cost effective way of dealing with the prison system is to decrimalise drugs. Get them legal. Get them regulated. Get them fairly priced. You would see property crime go down. Less turf wars over the control of the drug market. Less damage from poorly cut/manufactured drugs.
But, of course, that isn't as appealing as 5 second news grab about having to be tough on crime. It involves actual consideration and thought.
Yes, you are.
Firstly, no I don't work in govt.
Secondly, I was talking about having less prisoners, not a revolving door approach. If people are coming back as soon as they are released, there would be no reduction in prisoners.
Thirdly, I was talking about less prisoners SOLELY from a budget point of view (It was originally raised in a thread about budget cuts.) Costs in the NSW prison system blew out in the past couple of years. Why? Primarily because prisoner numbers increased. I wasn't talking about giving murderers short sentences, but more about the prison population as a whole. If we can reduce crime and re-offending, we would have less prisoners.
The extra victims, and the effects it has on their lives. The increased insurance premiums for the material good replacement. The drain on the medical services for medical and psychological treatment due to trauma.
The multiple costs to legal aid (not sure if it is called that here) for criminals, prosecuters,police force.
So, if there were more people in jail, you would spend less on police? As someone already posted, increased sentences does not mean a reduction in crime, and vice versa. Lower prisoner numbers doesn't mean an increase in crime, victims, insurance and medical costs.
Privatise prisons.
Governments should govern, not run prisons.
And I have always believed that inmates should work or study for 8 hours a day for their own well-being.
Remember that a teenager taking photos of themselves when they are 15 and then sending a photo to their 16yo boyfriend might end up getting charged with paedophilia. I don't really mind living next door to *that* kind of paedophile.
Also think its really bad that people get a lifetime black mark as a sex offender for something stupid they did before they were even an adult, but that's a whole other discussion.
But they are classified as such.
Or the 16 year old guy with a 15 year old girlfriend.
It happens.
Then the idiotic lynch squads get news about it, and suddenly think there 6 year old son is in danger from a straight guy who slept with a girl he was in a relationship with 1 month before he should have
And here I was thinking the discussion would be about whether the landlord had lawfully entered the property to carry out maintenance, or if he had lodged the required paperwork...
In other news, congrats to the landlord having enough presence of mind to yell out "It's just a washing machine" to establish his innocence if a self defence case came up.
In other news, congrats to the landlord having enough presence of mind to yell out "It's just a washing machine" to establish his innocence if a self defence case came up.
But they are classified as such.
Or the 16 year old guy with a 15 year old girlfriend.
It happens.
Then the idiotic lynch squads get news about it, and suddenly think there 6 year old son is in danger from a straight guy who slept with a girl he was in a relationship with 1 month before he should have
Like I said.. We are talking two VERY different things here. Don't try to muddy the waters.
Ok..if the "technical sex offenders" need to do time, we will have 2 prisons.
Personally, I think that is something that needs to be addressed, and stop wasting tax payers money on.
So, doubling up on costs now are we? Not really cost effective.
Come on people. Think these things through.
When I was a student, I did my big final project on prisons. It was very interesting. I visited Mulawa womens prison in Sydney. I think its a low-med prison. Even just one day in there was an awful feeling.. I dont think it would be an easy life at all. Just because you have a TV or time in the exercise yard. I felt demeaned/ demotivated/ helpless etc... and I was just a visitor.
One of the things we investigated was peoples perceptions of what prison is for.. rehabilitation, protection of community, punishment etc. We were primarily investigating "rehabilitation" (in the broadest possible sense)...... but from memory, all the research (this was over 20 yrs ago) is that prison doesnt work for rehabilitation. So, the primary successful puposes of prison are looking at protecting society and punishment.
I personally think we should focus prison on protecting society, and where people are not a "danger", we should make much better use of home detention or weekend detention for small time and white collar crims. Far too many young aboriginals/ lower class people are in prison, for minor crimes, and all it does it teach them to reoffend, because they have no responsiblity. Alot of these people need to learn basic living skills, and they never do, because they get into the system and become dependent.
I've just spent a week in hospital and when I got home, I found myself quite overwhelmed... I've already gotten so used to everyone doing stuff for me. I feel like I'm passively waiting to be looked after......... and I think prison has a similar effect on people. On the whole, its not a good thing.
I think prisons should be primarily for people who are dangerous, and who have committed a serious crime. I guess it would be a challenge to find the "cut off" point. But the current "law and order" put them in prison approach really doesnt work.
One of the things we investigated was peoples perceptions of what prison is for.. rehabilitation, protection of community, punishment etc. We were primarily investigating "rehabilitation" (in the broadest possible sense)...... but from memory, all the research (this was over 20 yrs ago) is that prison doesnt work for rehabilitation. So, the primary successful puposes of prison are looking at protecting society and punishment.
I personally think we should focus prison on protecting society, and where people are not a "danger", we should make much better use of home detention or weekend detention for small time and white collar crims. Far too many young aboriginals/ lower class people are in prison, for minor crimes, and all it does it teach them to reoffend, because they have no responsiblity. Alot of these people need to learn basic living skills, and they never do, because they get into the system and become dependent.
I've just spent a week in hospital and when I got home, I found myself quite overwhelmed... I've already gotten so used to everyone doing stuff for me. I feel like I'm passively waiting to be looked after......... and I think prison has a similar effect on people. On the whole, its not a good thing.
I think prisons should be primarily for people who are dangerous, and who have committed a serious crime. I guess it would be a challenge to find the "cut off" point. But the current "law and order" put them in prison approach really doesnt work.
good point.. I knew there was a 4th reason...
But I'm not sure that deterrence works for minor crimes....... I thiink alot of these people just do stupid things on the spur of the moment. and weekend/home detention could still be seen as a deterrent as well...........
They might be seen as deterrent - but I bet that incarceration is a much better deterrent as the denial of freedom would make even the most hardened criminals think twice before committing a crime.
The only person I know on home detention is a rather long term paedophile - prefers teenagers around 15-16yo. He was picking them up on the internet for YEARS and only got caught/charged/convicted when a relationship went sour and she pressed charges afterwards.
His home detention was pure and simple home detention (not that he ever left the house anyway) and noone took away his computer. He switched to picking up girls who are strictly outside paedophilia age, ie 17 and over and refused to touch any under 17.
He's 6 months older than I am. I prefer younger partners too, but as I've got older my preferred age range has grown older with me and I honestly don't find people younger than their late 20s attractive any more. I've known him for a bit over 10 years and he has always, ALWAYS preferred girls around 15-16 and I expect he's going to be one of those dirty old men in his 50s still doing the same thing.
I don't get what they see in him but then I'm not young and silly anymore ...
Edit: he's the brand of paedophile you can safely leave around your little boys but for gods sake do NOT let anywhere near your teenage daughters. But teenage daughters do stupid things at the best of times so you'd probably be more concerned they'd be out getting drunk and pregnant with boys their own age than sneaking off with men in their late 30s, since that isn't the "stereotypical" paedophile.
His home detention was pure and simple home detention (not that he ever left the house anyway) and noone took away his computer. He switched to picking up girls who are strictly outside paedophilia age, ie 17 and over and refused to touch any under 17.
He's 6 months older than I am. I prefer younger partners too, but as I've got older my preferred age range has grown older with me and I honestly don't find people younger than their late 20s attractive any more. I've known him for a bit over 10 years and he has always, ALWAYS preferred girls around 15-16 and I expect he's going to be one of those dirty old men in his 50s still doing the same thing.
I don't get what they see in him but then I'm not young and silly anymore ...
Edit: he's the brand of paedophile you can safely leave around your little boys but for gods sake do NOT let anywhere near your teenage daughters. But teenage daughters do stupid things at the best of times so you'd probably be more concerned they'd be out getting drunk and pregnant with boys their own age than sneaking off with men in their late 30s, since that isn't the "stereotypical" paedophile.
