Martial Law

[Tab]

Another thing to consider is just how many people make a very good living out of the criminals. If you look at the list it is almost endless and many of the Countries richest people are lawyers or judges, or politicians who where former lawyers. Just count up all the jobs that crime supports, from burglar alarms, security companies,armoured car companies, I could go on but I wont clog up the page with endless jobs, but will leave you with this thought do the powers to be want to stop crime, or can they afford to stop crime.

[snyder]

Interesting about lawyers and politicos being among the richest in Britain. In the U.S. the richest people are either entertainers (including professional athletes) or businessmen, the latter having mostly backgrounds as salesmen. This proves the old adage that, if you want to make money get yourself a chair as close to the cash register as possible. Corporate lawyers do quite well here, and some plaintiff lawyers do well too, but you don't generally find them anywhere close to the top of the list. The biggest rewards in the U.S. go to whoever is standing there when the profits go up.

In the U.S., the infrastructure surrounding criminals is not particularly well paid. Judges make a comfortable living but no more than that. Defense lawyers usually just scrape by. A friend of mine who became a corporate lawyer told me about how his uncle, another corporate lawyer, pulled him aside when he was in law school and cautioned against letting his idealism lead him into criminal law. "Your clients will almost always be guilty and they will almost always be stupid. Worst of all, they can't pay."

[bigbart]

Forgive me if this has already come up, but I think that boot camps would sort out the criminal population more than prisons ever could. People come out of prison hardened, and they've usually learned much more about crime than they previously knew. No wonder they call it a "college of crime."
Boot camps would learn them discipline, and learn them to work as part of e team, as well as giving the c**ts some valuable beasting sessions. They would come out more likely to want a job, and much less likely to want to go back there. Look at the lads on "bad lad's army." Some have been to prison, others say they're not afraid of prison. But they all found the army training tough and some of the worst of them could'nt hack it and quit. Imagine if they couldn't quit, and imagine if shouting back at the corporals meant adding more time to your sentence. They would all be running around doing as they were told within days. Add lack of sleep and endless hours of PT and we would have a winner. Throw in some really nasty NCO's and don't allow them access to TV and other luxuries and all the cocky street kids who like to break and steal things because they're bored would soon find themselves legal pastimes, believe me. Another good idea was the one Tab mentioned about making them pay damages out of their own belongings. If that doesn't cover the cost, why not take the rest out of their wages/benefits when they get out? We are far too soft on our criminals. The victim of the crime always comes off worse. A lot of criminals don't even care if they go to jail, so why do we keep spending taxpayers money on housing criminals in these places? Boot camps. It's the only way. Older criminals wouldn't be able to do it, obviously. (Imagine Ronnie Biggs on an assault course?)

Whitey, in an earlier post you asked if you could use what I said (the post about the prison camp with the sign reading "freedom") again. It would be an honour.

[snyder]

Boot camps would learn them discipline, and learn them to work as part of e team, as well as giving the c**ts some valuable beasting sessions. They would come out more likely to want a job, and much less likely to want to go back there.

I don't think there's a single magic bullet. Boot camps would be good for some of them, but you also run the risk of toughening up some hard-core criminals. The other thing is a method that works for some people won't work for others. I think this is especially true of first- or second-time criminals who find themselves in custody as a consequence of a series of bad choices as opposed to a thoroughly rotten character.

Some personality types will be energized and encouraged by a boot camp. Others will be driven further into a shell, and may well need a very different atmosphere. To me, the real key is to figure out very early in someone's incarceration whether an individual is part of the one-third of prisoners who can be rehabiliated. If so, then you figure out a way to go with this person. The ultimate goal ought to be to bring their education and employability up to snuff, and to straighten out some issues in dealing with other people.

If they're part of the two-thirds that are gone, then you toss 'em in with the hard core. There will be sorting mistakes, so you provide even the hard core with an avenue to prove that they can be conditionally placed among those who can be rehabbed.

Another good idea was the one Tab mentioned about making them pay damages out of their own belongings. If that doesn't cover the cost, why not take the rest out of their wages/benefits when they get out?

Maybe this would work in the U.K. where entry-level wages may well be higher than in the U.S., but on our side of the pond a typical job open to an ex-offender won't even support that person. This is a real issue in the States. I don't see where restitution can be practical.

Maybe one way to do it is to impose a restitution tax once the ex-offender's income reaches a certain level. In the U.S., it could be done through the Social Security system. Once someone's Social Security number is known, then wherever they work they'll be trackable and if their income hits a certain level then an extra fee could be levied. But I wouldn't do it when an ex-offender is earning poverty wages. Not if the ultimate goal is to salvage the salvageable. Crushing someone for life isn't very practical.

A lot of criminals don't even care if they go to jail

If that's true in the U.K., then maybe one approach would be to lengthen the sentences and remove some of the privileges of incarceration. You also might want to ask yourself if the devil-may-care attitude is for external consumption only and doesn't reflect what an offender really thinks. In the U.S., there aren't many people who want to go to jail, regardless of what some of them might say to people.

[Guest]

How about reinstituting real punitive punishment... and restitution via forced labor... and chain-gangs for the real baddies?

[The Cheat]

Yeah sounds all fun andn games now but... 1984 anyone? A society free from crime would be idylic but I'm sure everyone here knows some d*ck-head corporal who would abuse his power's...And look at the ruperts that would be in charge... Are they more qualified than Tony? Sounds fun but I just can't see it ever working... a bit like comunism really... Just a thought...

[Guest]

Yeah, no argument... but go to Singapore... Iran under the Shah, the Arab Emirates... not much crime because it is heavily and rapidly punished. I saw (got stuck in a bazaar when they closed the gates) along with a large group of folks, a rapist thrown off a minaret. And that was a real punishment and object lesson! Saw something similar in Abu Dhabi in '80... again, punishment/object lesson.

[Ardennes44]

Herky,
the history of the Middle-East consists largely of people getting their heads chopped off, which is why members of the Saudi royal family now wear protective steel neck inserts, which is why they walk the way they do. (Sorry, I couldn`t resist! )

[The Cheat]

Exactly! Can you honestly say that we will enjoy a beter standard of living if even the most powerful and respected ppl have to wear inserts in case some nut job tries to knock their block off? I mean...If it was martial law then these ppl would be ruperts so it might not be so bad....hmmm.... Headless ruperts.....I thinkyou just changed my mind...

[bigbart]

Yeah sounds all fun andn games now but... 1984 anyone? A society free from crime would be idylic but I'm sure everyone here knows some d*ck-head corporal who would abuse his power's...And look at the ruperts that would be in charge... Are they more qualified than Tony? Sounds fun but I just can't see it ever working... a bit like comunism really... Just a thought...

There are prison guards who abuse their powers as well. All the authorities could do is keep their eye on things the best they can. A world without crime is near impossible, but with better deterrrents we might reduce crime. It's true that boot camps wouldn't work for everyone, but I think it would work for more people and be more effective than prisons, and certainly more effective than young offender institutes, where playstations and holidays abroad are the norm. It's probably true that people fear prison more than they let on, but it's also true that prison toughens most criminals up. They have to learn to defend themselves and watch their backs, and a lot of thr time they learn "trades" from burglars, armed robbers and so on. From what I've heard, a lot of "jobs" are planned by groups of people who meet on the inside. A kid could go in for shoplifting and come out being in on a plan to rob a post office. Whereas a boot camp would drill discipline into them to the point where they can get off their arses and do as they're told, rather than idling around thinking how they can steal a living. It's just my opinion that boot camps would sort out a majority of criminals, especially the younger ones.