mikk,
the new nazis are in the judiciary, the ones who treat the criminals with more passion than the victims.

If governments had much longer terms and could plan long term and carry their plans to fruition and be held (properly) accountable, it is more likely that gaols would be (largely) self-supporting communities. Prisons should be farms with light industry as well.

I am not going to waste a long explanation on this, because I reckon the reasons are self-evident.

Of course there will always be some criminals who must be held separately and constantly guarded.

Yes, I would like some shot for their awful crimes. However that is an emotional reaction and the head says otherwise, particularly because the grubs should be locked away forever as examples to others and never 'heroes' to their followers or getting the easy way out. Bryant for example should be forgotten by the feckless media who continually give him columns to gloat over and the publicity to encourage others.

Yuyutsu, you speak about ones freedom to abuse their bodies and die young. No problem there, until they turn up at the emergency department and EXPECT free medical assistance and often VERY COSTLY TREATMENT for their self induced problem. That's where the problem lies, not with their choice to abuse their bodies.

Perhaps the $7 fee will discourage some of this.

As for reducing ones calorie intake in prison, nobody is talking about staging them, just denying them the excess protein they require to bulk up. Of cause, as usual, if they don't like it, don't allow yourself to be there. Works for me!

...dead bad guys don't reoffend. Too right sbr108

Nice rant there Mikk, except only the likes of you are talking bout starvation.

My take on prison is that it should be for hardened crimes only and, it should be a hole in the ground. The worse the crime, the deeper the hole and the likes of TV and gym equipment should be supplied as pictures on the wall to remind them every day what they have given up by their actions.

You know the system is broken when people reoffend just so they can go back in.

Yet another area that's been ruined by the do-gooders of society.

I guess we differ a bit about how people who violate the rights and freedoms of others should be treated, Yuyutsu. I think that such people should have their rights and freedoms restricted beyond simply being unable to walk out of prison. And as you observe, prisoners who continue to violate the rights and freedoms of others deserve further restriction.

I think it costs at least $100,000 per year to jail an offender (I know of one facility housing ten inmates that cost $90 million), so I am all for reducing the cost of the community. I'd also want the business kept in Australia, so I guess that rules out offshore prisons. I proffered the suggestion of de-bulking violent offenders as a measure with no harm to the offender other than to their self image, and the potential benefit of a reduced capacity for harm. If the lack of the option to bulk up in prison and the prospect of being de-bulked dissuades violent offenders from re-offending then all the better.

Fester, the main problem with your suggestion is that it "assumes" size and bulk are the primary cause/tools of violence. If a violent man (and 99% of seriously violent people are "men") can't use his bulk he'll simply use a knife, a gun, any weapon at all and also can simply hire goons to do the dirty work.

In other words, taking away the muscles from a prisoner will NOT take away the violence from that prisoner when he is released.

Hi Nhoj,

Yes, I agree that the correlation of size and violence is unknown, but I am considering the assumption that a de-bulked offender has less capacity to threaten and harm even if their inclination remains unchanged. It would be interesting to hear a perspective from a prison worker.