quote "the ... belief that violent crime can be remedied by social engineering, social intervention and more "services" to help those "vulnerable" people who are susceptible to criminal behaviour; in other words it is all society's fault"

That "it is all society's fault" is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "other words" for what was said previously - the first is about how crime may be reduced, the second is about who is (morally?) responsible, or to blame, or at "fault".

Two totally different things, however much it may suit certain people's views to pretend to confuse them

"Prisons, An Inconvenient Truth"?

Even some of the most vicious and low-life crims in jail
are being encouraged to feel the “Real Victims”
There is now a Massive “Prison Welfare Industry” catering to this.
It used to be, "Do the Crime Do the Time"
With No Sympathy.
And this was Understood and Accepted by the inmates.
Many of them caused a lot of Pain and Suffering
to a lot of good people.
My experience and observation over years was that
90% of the prison population deserved to be there.
I did the Prison Programme when employed as a Counsellor
with QAIAS and assisted with parole applications.
I also spent a few Early Years in Prisons.
As a lot of us did when Cherbourg was deregulated in the sixties.
Not because we were Crims or had Criminal Intentions.
We simply had some issues adjusting to a different way of life
when we moved to Brisbane. And, We All Moved On.
The inmates of today are certainly a Different Kettle of Fish.
Many Hardened Criminals with 20 or more convictions for car theft, burglary or break and enter and destruction of property,
And with no respect for anything or anyone.
Including the Elderly and other Aboriginals.
Quite a few for vicious assaults. On women and even children.
Most spruik Aboriginal Rights
but are Ignorant on the Rights of Other People in the Community
whom need to be protected from them.
This being why they are in Prison.
Most are “Repeat Offenders”.
Definitely not “Innocent Victims” and “Traffic fine Defaulters”
As the “Aboriginal Victim Industry” ( AVI )
including the “Out of Touch” and “Misguided Moral Postures” ANTaR
and Others, would have us believe. ( 6/6/2009 alb. )

extract from www.whitc.info

Arthur Bell.

Criminal justice is a field of debate in which no winners emerge, either literally amongst those involved or figuratively amongst those discussing the issue.

Those who have dealt with inmates have encountered untold numbers with horrendous life stories. A constant theme is drug fuelled lives, personal abuse and deprivation.

Those who have suffered crimes being committed against them can have various repercussions including nightmares and fear of being in different situations. These impacts can blight their lives.

In dealing with inmates one point that is stressed to them is that an understanding of the forces that led to a decision being made that became a crime does not change the fact that person is responsible for that decision. Progress does not occur until that is accepted. The notion of being a victim of some horrendous experience does not change responsibility or the need to accept it and find a way forward.

The use of the term victim is similarly a hindrance for those who have suffered crime. Are such people helpless in the face of events or do they too have decisions and actions to take to deal with what has happened? Again there is a responsibility to self to address the situation rather than have, as some call it, ‘a pity party’.

...

Those within corrective services understand many of the futilities going on. The ongoing methadone program may produce more tractable inmates but it maintains addiction and a probability of reoffence. Rehabilitation and training programs which are attended solely to put ticks on a form for parole and which have no impact on the inmate are of little value. Abusive and capricious gaols merely allow the inmate to see themselves as victims and seek revenge on release.

Media use of the standard interview after a major case in which the people subject to the crime always say the sentence is not enough gains attention on TV, but that response would be drawn no matter how long the sentence. Politicians can continue with law and order auctions on who is toughest with sentencing and play on fears to their advantage. This does not improve justice.

How often do those subject to crime want to front the perpetrator and see they understand the harm they have caused? Having suffered crime and spoken to others this makes sense. Yet this is not readily achieved within the current approach to justice.

Keane’s call for a return to justice could benefit from understanding the Old Testament’s proscribing of an eye for an eye was not calling for a perpetrator to be blinded – rather it limited our desire for revenge by beheading them! Is the criminal justice system no more than an organised means by which revenge is achieved or does it have a job to do?

There is an industry around justice in which careers and fortunes are to be made let alone political points to be scored. Academia, that increasingly irrelevant group in Australia least capable of addressing society’s needs, speaks ad nauseum without lifting a finger to help. The genuine needs amongst those subject to crime and amongst perpetrators are not handled.

Who will put the money and mental effort in to achieve change?

Cronus derogatively talks about law and order auctions. Unfortunately it has been the opposite. Our politicians have been bullied by politically correct zealots who believe all this “it’s society’s fault” nonsense. They have pandered to the ideological, vocal and completely irrational elite. In doing so they have let down the victims of crime and with reckless indifference allowed the victims of crime to suffer horrendous torment. All because they have been too afraid of a small number of vocal, politically correct elite. Shame on the politicians. Thankfully there is such community outrage over grossly inadequate sentencing that our politicians might finally do the decent, rational and morally correct thing and start to bring sentencing in line with community expectations.
Cronus also says “Those who have dealt with inmates have encountered untold numbers with horrendous life stories. A constant theme is drug fuelled lives, personal abuse and deprivation.” Thankfully people are finally starting to challenge this myth that crime is a function of social deprivation. And drugs don’t cause violent crime. There is absolutely zero rationale for that.

Michael Keane, Please explain what you mean by 'simple criminality'. How does this work?

Seems to me that all the social research shows that there is no such thing. You don't understand the evidence that shows that criminality is not simple, do you? It's not that difficult to understand you know. Just takes a bit of mental effort to move out of that comfort zone where it's all so simple if only people saw things the way you do.

Perhaps you could look at the way football clubs are working with their young men, using all that 'leftist' psychological evidence to minimise the criminal behaviour of their players. Did you notice that it seems to be working?

Wonderful the way the latest 'politically correct' research becomes useful when there is money to be made and public opinion makes it necessary to do something about that 'simple criminality'.

To me, this is where the train left the station:

"Firstly, whether or not the number of serious offenses is actually rising, the public perceives evermore intimidation."

No. Not 'whether or not' the number of serious offenses is actually rising. This is crucial.

If the numbers are 'not' rising, then in fact, we're on to a winner. Instituting any major structural changes risks doing the opposite.

Consider the rhetoric in the US - tough on crime, prisons jam-packed full, death penalty used in certain states. You'd think this would be more effective than what the author portrays as our namby-pamby approach.

Actually, their prisons are bursting at the seems, horrifically high percentages of the population are being incarcerated and I for one, don't think that's an improvement. Then take a look at scandinavia, with cushy prisons and high welfare, and consider the difference.

If it's merely a matter of public perception, then we need to consider the media's role and so forth - there's money in sensationalizing bad news, not so much cash in the 'all is well' approach.

So before you rail against political correctness and suggest reform the system, please make sure that crime is actually rising, because I don't think it is and I'd rather we didn't bust the system if it's working.

Jerry D misses the point about dealing with inmates and the abuse they have suffered – the point made forcefully to inmates is understand the forces at play but ALWAYS know you made a choice that led you into crime. When they accept they made the choice and weren’t helpless victims doomed to become criminals’ chances of rehabilitation improves. Such a notion of choice assumes inmates are responsible.

The notion “our politicians might finally do the decent, rational and morally correct thing and start to bring sentencing in line with community expectations” has emotional appeal to me having suffered major crimes. I’d like revenge; I’d like to see the perpetrator suffer. Am I better off for this?

Mohandas Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind”. What is the outcome in real terms that seems to stir passions over justice so much?

Placing the perpetrators I have been subject to in gaol as though that was the solution on its own would achieve what for me? I see absolutely little benefit to me apart from a rather pyrrhic sense of revenge, an emotional high for those who want to make noises around the subject, little if nothing done to get perpetrators to confront the consequences of their decisions in a practical, direct sense, and nothing to divert others from such choices.

Budgets are always an issue, costs per inmate are high.

To me a debate on justice needs to:

1. Address the needs of those subjected to crimes to have recognised by the perpetrator and society the consequences of what was done – merely being in gaol does not do enough. I would like to confront the perpetrator and see they know the consequences, all the paraphernalia of the justice systems and debates around justice gets in the way of this.

Do not be fooled this is the soft option – this is harder to deal with than doing time.

2. Diversionary programs which take people at risk of offending and exposes them to the consequences – programs in the US which exposed late teens to inmates who spelt out the reality of gaols and the life consequence had impact. With teen males getting them to picture in their heads what things like rape feels like or bashings does more for diversion than a million words and talks ever can.

3. Discuss the gaol system ceasing being a capricious system with a mix of highly professional staff and inappropriate staff who abuse the power they have over inmates – keep those who are professional and get rid of the rest. The professional staff have the greatest chance of impacting on inmates’ future and are creditworthy.

4. Moving gaols to a strictly behaviourist view of management of inmates – set the ground rules for behaviour creating predictability and enforce conformity to the process of rules on inmates and staff, staff should not be in a position of using whim to decide outcomes. Learning cause and effect is part of rehabilitation for many inmates.

The required behaviour should include work and education programs and lead to rewards in a genuine sense, let those who fail to comply have but a bare minimum. I’d challenge anyone thinking they’ll get luxury foods etc to live on inmate rations for a week. Pay head to Hinch’s recent comments on home detention, the loss of freedom in itself has greater impact than those not subject to ever can appreciate.

My challenge would be for a Corrective Services Department to use a periodic detention centre to house some of the noisiest of the critics for a week, subject them to the rules of gaol and see what they conclude!

5. Removal of foolish programs such as methadone which maintain addiction and perpetrate the problems associated with addiction. The notion an addict has a choice is an absurdity but yes those who do not choose recovery are not great prospects for recovery – but contributing to maintaining addiction may produce docile inmates but it maintains the problems.

TurnRightThenLeft’s comments points to the best advice on this topic, look for evidence.

What is the evidence about the efficacy of the justice system in the US, hard on crime approach, compared to Scandinavia’s high welfare regime? Evidence should be the basis for making policy not emotional rhetoric.