As I said before: this is not about being soft; it is about prisons being misdirected. Don't think in terms of 'tough' or 'soft'. That is the wrong framework and moreover, one that buys into the criminal framework of thinking. Think in terms of reparenting damaged children.
I honestly can't do that though Nexxo, as I know some ex offenders who came from good homes, good parenting, had all the breaks in life etc etc, and still ended up in prison, through their own actions and decisions alone. I understand where you are coming from, in that a childs upbringing will definitely have an effect on their adult life, and I agree with this to a point. There is a time though in every adult's life, when they must take sole responsibility for their own actions. That's where I think we differ in our opinions. If a person is taught right from wrong, then they only have themselves to blame should they fall from grace. I think I lean towards the nature side of the nature/nurture debate, in that some people will end up criminals regardless of their early development.
No but as I said, I have met people who had all the chances in their early lives and then went on to blow it big time in adulthood. I know that parenting does have a massive effect on how an child develops, but I do wonder if there are genuinely people who are just born bad.
You're really not reading what I write at all. As AGAIN I'll ask where did I say to make Prisons tougher/hell-hole.
I'm afraid that it is not as simple as that. Although it is true that people are born with a temperament that may make them more inclined to antisocial or criminal activity under the wrong circumstances (whereas some are born with a temperament that regardless of circumstances simply would not turn criminal --but that does not necessarily mean that they are more functional people), people are not born 'evil'. That is simplistic BS propagated by people who cannot be bothered to go through the messy business of understanding before they can get to the fun part of condemning. As a clinical psychologist I know how qualified the notion of a "good childhood" or "bad childhood" is. Some people seem to have it all --supportive, loving parents, a materially comfortable background, good educational opportunities-- and they still go off the rails. How can this be? I read this litany every so often in magazines or newspapers when they recount the childhood of someone who committed some incomprehensibly vile act. Meanwhile I (and my colleagues) point at various lines in the biography and go: "that's why. And that's why. And that's why...". Parents can be loving, but fail to impose consistent boundaries. They can be fair, but not firm. They can be caring, but not affectionate. They can be generous to the point of spoiling a child and generating a sense of over-entitlement. They can show poor impulse control in their own behaviours (a parent can drink way too much and behave like a ****. Middle-class parents who would not dream of laying a finger on their children can still have hysterical, violent rows in front of them). Thing is, it takes someone like a clinical psychologist to spot the problems and know how they make a difference. Most laypeople are oblivious. And how would they know any different? When little Johnnie turns out to be a drug dealing, child raping, bank robbing ******* do you think his parents are going to 'fess up: "Yeah, sorry, our bad, we shouldn't have whipped him with chains and locked him in the cellar for being disobedient as a kid...". Of course not. It's always: "We don't know where we went wrong...". Of course you are right that adults have to accept responsibility for their actions, but the trick is how you get them to do that. It is not through vengeful punishment. Criminals think in terms of revenge, so it just reinforces their thinking. Deprivation does not do it. Many criminals are used to random acts of abuse and neglect --they do not connect it to their actions. Even you yourself did not learn anything new in prison. You learned that getting into fights will get you into trouble with the law, but you did not gain any insight into why you get into fights, and how you have to change as a person. Don't think in stereotypes. It is not that simple. Sorry if I did not answer you --I was sort of tied up in a conversation with stuartpb. Basically you said: Basically you are saying that prison life should be less comfortable than life for many people on the outside. Well, life for many people on the outside is actually pretty harsh. It is bad enough when people end up undernourished and deprived and, say, dying of hypothermia in winter because of socio-economic misfortune. It is even worse when we do it to people deliberately, because we think they are shits and deserve to suffer.
In my case I think I got into trouble as a kid so often because we lost my dad at an early age, and I wanted to prove that I was the man of the house now. I saw myself as taking on my dad's responsibilities in some way. I was also angry at the world for some years after, if I am totally honest. I got into a lot of fights due to being protective of my sister and mum too. But at the time of my conviction (20 odd yrs old), I would say I thought I had matured past this. I think I already knew why I got into fights, as mentioned above, but I didn't see it as a serious problem until it was too late. On reflection (of which I have had quite a few years practice), I wasn't as grown up as I thought I was at that time. Prison did serve as a deterrent for me though, enough to force me to consider my ways, but I accept that this is often something which does not happen nowadays. I wouldn't like to place stereotypes on offenders, as I know there are a multitude of reasons why people commit offences. I also accept that bad parenting is definitely a contributory factor, and a serious one. As I said though, I have met enough nutters to believe that there genuinely are some naturally bad people. These may be a small minority, but I do believe they exist. I wouldn't call them evil, as I don't believe in good and evil any more than I believe in the god and the devil.
No, that's not what I said at all. But good job in trying to escalate what I say into making them suffer because they're little shits. Notice I say MANY on the outside don't have. This is such things as Games consoles, TV's in their own cells etc. Surely a great solution is to have a TV room to share with each other, which helps them become more sociable with their prison-mates instead of locking them in their room. It gives them more freedom and doesn't make them into such a social outcast. Also good job in making up me saying luxuries includes Food and heat, which I never said again, and you seem to have made it become an actual luxury in life instead of a necessity. You seem to be good at this making stuff up. Learn the term luxury, it's something you don't need, but it's nice to have. Do you have Virgin Media/Sky? That's a luxury. Do you have a PC? Another luxury. Do you have food in your cupboards? Not exactly a luxury really is it, you can live without the first two, but you can't live without the last.
Thank you for clarifying that; sorry if I misunderstood you. Just so we are on the same page: what luxuries do you think a prisoner should not have, and why? @stuartpb: people are never born nutters (even those with a vulnerability to psychosis). Some are born without the ability to emphatise well; we call them autistic and although their behaviour can get challenging, it is rarely criminal or intentionally hurtful (ironically it takes the ability to empathise to be cruel). Some are born with a temperament that demands incessant stimulation and finds it hard to regulate itself (it's a frontal lobe thing). Without good parenting these people are most prone to become the criminals you think of, but with good childhood backgrounds they become the successful, driven high achievers that we so admire: surgeons, fighter pilots, business magnates, world-champion boxers, athletes. Nutters are made. As R.D. Laing would say: in our crazy, messed-up society it is almost the only 'sane' way to survive. But we don't like to admit to ourselves that our society can breed monsters. Remember: in the trial of Thompson and Venables their solicitors were expressly forbidden by the judge to even mention their childhoods. That was a pity, because it would have been most enlightening of their behaviour. No, better to just dismiss them as evil monsters. If we don't have to stare into the abyss, it can't stare back at us.
I don't know about all the theories but I had a good family and mainly ended up in prison for doing one bad thing - had only been in minor trouble with the police before then. Nobody else in my family have been in trouble with the police at all. Most of the lads where I was weren't too bothered by prison and were used to it. LIke I said before loads of them had been in a few times already. I did get to do a couple of courses - anger management - but they were a bit of a joke. Most people did them just to get the extra pay you got for doing them. I definitely would consider it if I can't get a decent job over the next couple of years but think it would be hard only joining if I was 28 or 29 or whatever. I know what you mean about people looking down at me. I've only been out a few weeks and I've got that alright. I had good mates who said they would visit if I got sent down but didn't bother. When you are in prison you find out who your real mates are. I've always worked but it's hard to get even an interview now. I have one next week for just cleaning parks, emptying bins - not something I want to end up doing but I mightn't even get it! I thought of putting in an application for a normal job on my own and just saying I was in Australia for the time I was in prison and thought when they saw I worked hard it wouldn't matter about my record. Was somebody really jailed for doing that?
Yeah, I saw it on one of the news sites when it first came about. Only thing I can find about it now is this: http://www.rec-con.co.uk/article.php/News/Liar_jailed/2708 She lied about her qualifications, but the same rules apply about lying with convictions. A bit more on here about it: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7078237.ece
Try not to be too hard on your mates, I know some of mine really wanted to visit but didn't like the thought of visiting. It's really not easy for some people if they have never been in those surroundings before. If, on the other hand, they just couldn't be bothered, then they aren't really mates and you haven't lost out Regards the job front, just keep plugging away at the jobs you see. I got knocked back loads of times because of the trouble I had been in and it got pretty depressing after a while, but I refused to give in. If you are having problems, I would definitely recommend doing some volunteering, as employers hate seeing vacant gaps in people's career histories. It's a good way at getting experience of other jobs/tasks and learning new skills. It doesn't help with the cash flow, but it does pay off in the long term.
Really? Let me recap here: You are saying that you have been in trouble with the police before. You are also saying that you were done for assault 2 years ago. Recently you were done for GBH. GBH basically means "really serious physical injury", so this is not just a few guys exchanging a few punches. I think it is safe to say that this was not an isolated argument that unfortunately went a bit out of hand, but part of a behaviour pattern. I think that you have a problem with your temper and self-control and that frankly, you were in denial of that. I hope you aren't anymore. I also note that you express a lot of worry about your own plight --doing time, social ostracision, how it affects getting a job-- but very little regret, except for how you have been affected. There appears to be no consideration for how your victim has been affected by all this. This may of course just be because it has been outside the scope of the discussion in this thread, but I'm just saying. You also mention: You are putting the blame for your friends abandoning you squarely with them, not with what you have done. You are also considering lying on your job application and not owning up to (and therefore accepting responsibility for) what you have done. So does your past record really matter? I'd say there are some issues to consider. You have a track record of repeated aggression. You do not take ownership of it. It is all: "How could this have happened to me?". You assaulted somebody, is how! Now if you are looking to employ someone in a job that requires self-control, involves a position of power and trust and a sense of personal responsibility, would someone's legal track record matter? Would you hire yourself? As for your family: how do you know whether they are a functional family? It's the only one you know.
Lying on your job application is a form of fraud. You are basically saying that you have qualifications that you do not really possess. Note that the woman in question was caught for lying about her academic qualifications and her references and was caught out because her performance was not up to the job. Meanwhile other more deserving (and honest) candidates who had possibly worked harder and were more suitable for the job missed out. Finally, the job was with the NHS where people's health and possibly lives are affected by how well you do your job. She was an admin in capital projects management, which basically involves dealing with large amounts of money. Position of power, trust and responsibility again --this woman demonstrated through her actions that she could not be trusted with any.
I'm currently in the Army and was considering the Prison Service for when I'm out in a few years. Judging by some of the comments on here I may have to reassess! Any thoughts on it as a good career?
All prisoners are bad people and should be locked in calls barely bigger than themselves for 23 hours a day.
