Vast sums of money are spent on maintaining our prison system. As we know a significant majority of inmates have literacy , drug and alcohol problems . Many have been in foster homes or come from dysfunctional families.
It has been noted many times that if a fraction of the money spent on prisons was directed to these families in need of support or to prisoner rehabilitation we would see the crime rate diminish.
How unethical is it for governments then to fail to address this problem ? Even more galling is privatisation of prisons .. a veritable industry !
Please share your thoughts.

It would be great if people weren't so addicted to drugs and alcohol. Why are they addicted? I don't know. If we could figure that one out we'd really be on to something good. So many other problems would be solved all in go.

Its difficult to know how to sort out the problem of inprisonment, but I can see a time coming when the government will limit or control the children coming into the world by some means to stem the supply of dysfunctional people before they send us all broke.

Rehabilitation does not work for the majority of prisoners for a range of reasons. So a significant amount of money must be spent to protect society from these prisoners and criminals who are highly likely to reoffend today, tomorrow, next year. A cheaper option would be the death penalty.

Money is and should be spent on preventative measures such as improved education and courses demonstrating the meaning and implications of various values and ethics for kids etc.

But to allocate the entire prison budget to preventative measures would increase the crime rate for the life time of the existing criminals and a short term cost the current community is doubtful to accept despite the longer term benefits.

It's a question of balance between the short term and longer term. Maybe it needs tuning? What changes would you suggest?

Some years ago I was visiting one of the prisons in our state and learned that prisoners with a first or second grade education were learning to read, write, basic math, and enough other information to complete the requirements for a high school diploma in a little over a year.

When I was working, I dealt with employees who had graduated from high school and were functionally illiterate. A few were in college and doing okay despite the fact they couldn't read.

Educating or incarcerating isn't an either/or situation. We can do both and many prisons offer educational programs.

Our educational system doesn't work in spite of ever higher costs.

Doing OK in college even though they couldn't read??
I suppose we can blame multiple choice exams and internet plaigarism for this state of affairs.
The facts contained in the link below are interesting.....however it strikes me that its the machines that have all the intelligence, if all the power went off where would we be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEnFwiq ... r_embedded

Not unusual in the West and not unheard of in the East. Sydney University used to/may still have a remedial class for 1st year undergraduates covering reading and writing in English; this was for locals not immigrants, the latter were catered for in ESL classes.

But to allocate the entire prison budget to preventative measures would increase the crime rate for the life time of the existing criminals and a short term cost the current community is doubtful to accept despite the longer term benefits.

I hope I didn't suggest the above Airzone . Also I must say I was a mite shocked that you could even think of a "cheaper option" the death penalty .Very tongue in cheek I hope.

No, I think it is time to decriminalise drug use and place emphasis on re education Note , drug pushers deserve to be dealt within the prison system.

catey

Which came first the individuals responsibility to abide by societys rules or accept the consequences of their action or societys responsibility for prisons?

There are consequences for all actions whether they be those of a society or that of an individual. Sadly society inorder to protect itself has to resort to incaceration of those who contravene its laws. I say sadly, because the majority of offenders in our society fail to understand the consequences of their behaviour or are unable to control their actions . I am not sure which is first matters they seem to go hand in hand don't you think?

catey



No i don't think they go hand in hand.

One solution might be to execute repeat offenders who didn't rehabilitate after their first run in with society.

Perhaps the portion of shari'a law that prescribes amputation of a hand for theft to dissuade repeat offenders might help people understand the consequences of their action.

Perhaps banishment from society. Find a large island someplace and drop them off there by parachute with whatever they can carry on their person. Society need not set foot their and they run naval patrols to keep others from coming except via the approved means and people trying to escape are turned back.

catey wrote:

... It has been noted many times that if a fraction of the money spent on prisons was directed to these families in need of support or to prisoner rehabilitation we would see the crime rate diminish.

No, you didn't suggest all the prison budget should be spent on rehab. I was trying to show that either extreme (all or none) is probably unacceptable. My apologies, I didn't make my meaning and purpose clear. My arthritic fingers run behind my thoughts sometimes. I understand governments do spend money on prisoner rehabilitation and support of families. What I was asking; is what changes are you suggesting? I meant to put forward that 100% on rehab is unacceptable. Are you suggesting an additional 5% on rehab and families and a 5% reduction on prison expenditure? 20%? 50%? While I realise it is a hard question, I also realise that a fluffy statement like "governments must spend more on ..." is a nice warm comforting statement but because it does not consider that increasing expenditure in one area will decreasing expenditure in another, it is just a warm and fuzzy statement.

Governments do the best they can in managing their budgets. Everyone thinks, and everyone has thought that the Government should or could do better. This tells us something, it isn't easy to manage a Government budget! There is a finite amount of resource. Increased spending on rehab of prisoners and just perhaps the hospitals will have fewer doctors for example. if not the hospitals, something will miss out. And the next question is of course, is rehab of prisoners and family support more ethical that the other activity which has just suffered a budget cut. Now that is a tough ethical question.

I apologise if this sounds tough, but ethics is about making difficult tough decisions and understanding the implications of those decisions.

catey wrote:

... Also I must say I was a mite shocked that you could even think of a "cheaper option" the death penalty .Very tongue in cheek I hope.

Shocked? The death penalty is I believe a cheaper option than life imprisonment. Fact. This might surprise but surely not shock? It is very expensive to provide food and accommodation and security for prisoners. Death is much cheaper. I would also suggest that the death penalty is more ethical than life imprisonment in many cases. I fail to see much benefit for anyone in life incarceration of say a young man of twenty. Assuming it is not possible to rehabilitate him for whatever reason, (his learned behaviours cannot be unlearned ... a consistent psychopathic paedophile for example) his incarceration adds nothing to the community and costs a great deal. The death penalty could be the most ethical choice, but not probably the political one.

catey wrote:

No, I think it is time to decriminalise drug use and place emphasis on re education Note , drug pushers deserve to be dealt within the prison system.

Again I am sorry, but I do not believe that "education" changes behaviour in many instances. People do not behave based upon their knowledge or education. They behave based upon their emotions, feelings, and perhaps very early learning's, wants and needs and such like. Education, especially after early childhood does not solve drug addiction. I have been educated as have my children and I suspect most of us have also been educated (tongue in cheek), yet we do not believe or accept much of what we have been told. Most smokers know smoking is bad for them, yet they still smoke. Re-education? Hands up all on this forum who needs to be re-educated! Not me, I'm fine ... so I say anyway! (tongue in both cheeks this time)

We need to prosecute drug users as a disincentive and educate the young. We need to mentor people who seek to solve their problems with drugs. We need positive role models which such drug users can try to emulate. (today we have role models for drug use showing cool dudes with flash cars, women hanging off their arms, flouting the law and seemingly getting away with it - for a while anyway). We need tougher penalties on those who benefit from promoting drugs and we need to marginalise them is our society and ... ready to be shocked ... to remove them from our society, exterminate them if necessary. We need a complex, changeable responsive mix of things to actively manage this very serious problem. Making money from trading misery in others is a despicable act. I would like to see the tax on cigarettes and alcohol double every five years to discourage these two legal drugs. ... Now them's fightin' words!

"It has been noted many times that if a fraction of the money spent on prisons was directed to these families in need of support or to prisoner rehabilitation we would see the crime rate diminish. How unethical is it for governments then to fail to address this problem ? Even more galling is privatisation of prisons .. a veritable industry !"

Catey, I don't believe it is unethical at all. I largely agree with Airzone's statements - when a government has a limited budget, priorities have to be made. You either keep the prison system unchanged and pour more money into 'rehabilitating prisoners' and supporting their families, which results in decreased spending in another area(education, military, healthcare, etc.). In addition, what specifically would you have taxpayer money spent on? Half-way houses, addiction support clinics, force employers to allow former prisoners to work without discriminating via their record? Personally, I think the great difficulty lies within society's contempt and pity for prisoners. A former prisoner is lucky if his own (dysfunctional?) family will associate with him on a positive level, let alone the average member of society. What employer wants to hire a former convict? Increased risk of stealing, unreliability, bad image towards customers, etc.

As to your second statement, I wholeheartedly disagree. If I am not mistaken, there isn't any benefit in the public prison system besides the jobs created for convicts' captors. I may be incorrect(do prisons generate any tangible profit for the government?). However, from what I understand companies are actually using prisons as an employee base - as far as having them work in production lines for very little pay. What better way to 'pay their debt to society' then to actually have them generate income for a parent company, while at the same time preparing them for their future release by instilling a work ethic system of some kind?

You are forgetting about the young man's life. Is it ethical to kill a human to save money?



Perhaps if they had the knowledge that they are being driven by their biological needs, they would be better able to make logical decisions?



1. Drug addicts know that what they are doing is destroying their life. Educating them is useless. They need rehab - in other words, support from other people.

2. Smoking is bad from a health perspective. Gambling is bad from a financial perspective. Obesity is bad from a health perspective. Strip clubs are bad from a women's perspective. Prostitution is worse. Yet you can find well adjusted, functional people who smoke, gamble, are obese, go to or work at strip clubs, or enjoy/work as prostitutes. ie: Jeremy Clarkson(smoker), Giacomo Casanova(gambling), Queen Latifah(obesity), Elliot Spitzer(prostitution)



Prosecute drug users? The US govt tried to ban alcohol, they repealed that pretty quickly. Cocaine, PCP, Ecstasy, Crack, Heroine, and especially Marijuana. Not to mention prescription drugs. All illegal in the United States, it doesn't stop anyone from using it, and in addition it separates the addicts by labeling them as lawbreakers and criminals just for the fact that they CONSUME the drugs. How likely do you think it is that they will get public help when they are despised and outlawed by their country? In fact it may actually drive rebellious youth to express their disdain for authority by using drugs...so I'd like to hear your master plan on 'removing drugs from our society'. Last time I checked, no companies promote hard drugs(it's illegal remember?) and they still find their way into people's hands. Taxes on cigarettes are already driving customers to search for alternative sources, increase them too much and you probably end up decreasing federal revenue. Search the effectiveness of the drinking age limit of 21 in the US, it DOES NOT work! The root problems need to be addressed - as long as their are people who can and will buy drugs, drugs will find their way into the marketplace.