squeers,

'I suspect modern versions of slavery are a huge issue for women too, but less so prison slavery.'

Female slavery on the whole is an outrage, male slavery not so much.

I reckon it would be much more public knowledge and a massive scandal if those prison inmates were women. The fact that they were in prison would be explained away and excused by inequality and poverty, and the stats would be used as further evidence of women's oppression.

Male prisoners on the other hand deserve to be in there and that there are more male prisoners than female is no evidence of inequality but rather the innate abusive nature of men.

Dear Ammonite,

Privatization brings the sort of obscenity that has judges incarcerating hundreds juviniles for extended periods in the name of profit.

"On March 26 the Supreme Court approved Grim's recommendations and ruled that Ciavarella had violated the constitutional rights of thousands of juveniles, and hundreds of juvenile convictions were ordered overturned."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Just read between the lines and listen to this corporate speak from a company pushing for the privatization of the Texan prisoner health services. "Company officials could not be reached to elaborate, but its written proposal says it would cut costs by reducing admissions of prisoners to hospitals and by reducing the number of inpatient days that prisoners are there — a rate that the company says is 300 percent higher in Texas than the average at its locations.  It would also enhance medical treatment in prison clinics, as a way to keep convicts from being sent to a hospital, where the costs would be higher. Reducing annual admissions by 140 percent would yield a potential savings of $34 million, the proposal states...."
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2011/05/private-providers-seeking-piece-of-prison-health-care-pie-in-texas.html

But returning to our own house I am wondering if anyone has a position on whether governments should be held accountable for increases in incarceration rates? Why can't we settle on a desirable figure and treat it like a budget? If Victoria wants to introduce mandatory minimum sentences or if WA wants a three strikes rule then why shouldn't they be forced to find mitigating policy like drug decriminalization to 'fund' it?

I would be interested to hear some thoughts?

Houellebecq,

your point does make sense; there is an intuitive logic, which we don't question, that men are predisposed to offend. Maybe the system fails men more than it does women..
Glad to see you're in favour of radical reform : ) Though the ladies might have something to say about that!

csteele,

I think your budget idea has great merit (with a provisor); surely letting society degenerate to such high proportions of incarceration is as much an election issue as tax cuts? You'd think so..
A police state surely suggests something's wrong?
Though I don't know if lowering the bar of acceptable behaviour is the answer, that just means degeneracy wins, doesn't it?
Hence my provisor; it's a great idea if we see the current set-up as redeemable, and so worthy of remedial action. But sometimes we have to accept that the disease is fatal and keeping the patient alive is pathetic and cruel.
Seen from the point of view of the "prosperous", the system certainly seems worth preserving as it is (though don't look too closely--they're a shallow lot), but from the point of view of the "degenerates" (anyone who's not well off), a radical redistribution (rather than magnaminous tolerance) might be in order?

Dear Squeers,

Thanks for the response.

Agree entirely. I believe it is talked about as spending on the front end of life rather than the back end. It was estimated that every juvenile offender in WA will cost the state through their lifetime around $400,000. Also the younger they are when they make their first court appearance the more serious the crime they are likely to commit later in life.

$150,000 would by the best private school education.

Governments have a responsibility to husband the whole of society. Where some make a mistake is thinking incarceration is the key to lowering crime rates. It is often the easiest measure to take since getting tough on criminals will generally garner votes. However it is short sighted and generally cheats society of appropriate social spending.

The flight to private schools is a case in point. If a government maintained absolute funding levels we would now have one of the best education regimes in the world. Instead it is in their interest to underfund and have more parents fund a percentage of their child's education in the private sector.

Chronic and continuing underfunding impacts on dropout rates which are on the rise in Victoria particularly in rural areas. Another policy that will come home to roost in the incarceration rates.

Early and adequate intervention of those who are likely to fall through the cracks should be the commitment of any society that values human lives. It is a pity to think it takes a cost benefit analysis to sway a government into action. We should be funding it because we don't want to see blighted lives perpetually carried through the justice system.

csteele

Agree entirely. We have lost sight of the reason we have governments, that is to provide services that for either economic conflict or moral reasons private enterprise cannot provide to the same level of accountability. Well that was how it was supposed to be.

On accountability, governments have become exceedingly opaque, thus giving reason for the levels of welfare to the private sector, such as in schools. The private sector has eagerly promoted this belief, that public enterprises are less efficient.

If the trend continues, government will put itself out of a job, there is no other single body set up to take responsibility for the treatment of people judged to be criminals.

The art of governing is not the same as running a business - yet that is apparently how governance is perceived to be today - all about making a profit instead of putting back into a nation's needs.