Take the TVs out of the prison cells.

I made this suggestion earlier in this thread not intending to be flippant or simplistic; I'd be interested to see some comment on the idea.

What I am really suggesting is to control the entertainment available in prisons; prisoners don't need to see violence or gain ideas from glorified crime movies; why not just show programs that are light hearted, uplifting, inspirational, educational, and generally positive. Offer viewing TV as a privilege and remove that privilege if there is bad behaviour.

I wonder if those re-offenders who 'can serve the time standing on their head' would reconsider another term in the slammer if they thought they may not be able watch TV for 12 months. Limiting or discontinuing one's TV privileges is not corporal or cruel punishment but I suspect it would be viewed as extremely harsh by the civil libertarians.

As far as the concept of punishment goes, in my view it may not be an effective deterrent but in whatever form it is administered, it at least serves as a reminder there are consequences and hopefully some offenders recognise their punishment is deserved and accept the consequences of their actions.

HASBEEN my friend, you've no doubt heard the oft' used phrase...? Lies, damn lies and statistics ? It is this particular reasoning that many of our academics run into so much trouble ?

There's always a place for sound academic thought, absolutely. It's these individuals who answer the call of those at the coal face, who seek methods, procedures, and other specific advice to (a) ensure the task is better performed; (b) assist in solving some intractable problem; (c) assist in designing practices to reduce accidents, or to identify methods of doing dangerous work much more safely. Of course there are many other situations where academics perform outstanding duties.

Always, in my 32 years in the job, these people are first introduced to the task. Secondly, they assist in identifying the problem; And thirdly they furnish ideas, proposals, and/or restrictions in order to perform that task more safely and/or more efficiently. Always, they must confine their recommendations strictly within the parameters and criterion that they are given.

Those who fail, generally are found to be arrogant enough to start telling others who've being doing the job 'perpetually' where they're going wrong ? Instead of first, gaining a thorough understanding of the task. Thus the term so often employed, that creates much mockery and ridicule 'academic idiot'. I could relay a very very funny incident that happened, to this young bloke, sent to examine tri-tiered police rostering protocol ? General patrol (uniform); District CIB (detectives) & Task force (detectives) I might just keep my powder dry for the moment, it's not my wish to create any embarrassment ?

You see HASBEEN, that why we're all provided with one mouth, and two ears ! Listen more and talk least ? Particularly applies to some of those, with an undergraduate degree !

Hasbeen,

What crimes are important to the general public is another issue and something you've simply introduced to divert attention from your obvious ignorance. As for these 68 first counts, I'd love to know what you're talking about there (with links). I'd also be curious as to how you have been able to consistently (over many decades) reliably gauge the level of break and enters without relying on the distortion of the media.

Your suggestions of grand conspiracies amongst academics are pretty far-fetched. Apparently a young tech guy can embarrass many countries by revealing their intelligence to the world; an American president can be exposed as a philanderer by his intern, and yet millions of academics all manage to all keep a big secret for their New World Order without anyone blowing the whistle. Out of 10,000 emails, not even climategate could reveal anything but a small handful of lines taken out of context. I had one lecturer who was the most Republican, gun totin' American I've ever come across. Surely those like him would want to earn themselves a name and expose the secret order.

o sung wu,

You have no right to paint me as some inexperienced know-it-all. I have invited you to share your experience and opinions several times over a couple of threads and you have declined, only to sit back and throw stones as if you had nothing to say that contradicted what I've said and felt uncomfortable with the fact. I have made an effort to remain particularly polite to you because I was interested in what you might have to share but you seem incapable of any sort of polite discussion with anyone who might disagree with you.

I'm sorry A J PHILIPS that you feel I've been unfair to you in some way ? That's the second time that you've accused me of not treating what you say seriously ? Probably because I simply don't agree with you ? There's nothing sinister or dishonest in that.

You're enveloped in a course of study that has a clear academic flavour ? That's fine. I've told you in one of my first threads, there's little relationship between the academic explanation of practical policing, and how the job actually functions in the field ?

Working detectives have little truck with theoreticians. You asked and, I'm telling you. You then cited your relative who's a detective, criminologist and a lawyer in Redcliff or somewhere, clearly an individual who's leaps and bounds ahead of me ! What more can I say, other than why bother attempting to adduce any further response from me, when you have such a clever relative ?

If I do make a statement you quote statistics. Earlier in another Topic you made some very derogative remarks about quote 'old time police, being uneducated', and basically dense ? My response, you've much to learn ? And so on it went ? My retort to you could've been far less benevolent, believe me ?

A J PHILIPS, there's a world of difference between your criminology studies, and active criminal investigation, believe this as you wish ? I'd be very grateful indeed, if you'd stop accusing me of being rude to you, clearly I'm not. And after a while it does wear a little thin.

Hi there CONSERVATIVE HIPPIE...

If you were to attempt to remove all the TV'S from prisoners cells in Prison, you'd probably end up starting a major riot on your hands ? And as far as permitting them to view programmes depicting violence, well it would be very tough indeed to fully sanitize all TV programmes I would've thought ?

Your comments about making gaol tougher - that's a complex issue in itself ? Officially, gaols over the last thirty five, forty years have been allowed to slowly relax the more formal institutional discipline, that had previously been the official policy for the preceding fifty or sixty years. For this reason, the government's position on prison discipline, is more or less thought, that's it's appropriate for the modern correctional setting ? To me at least, it's all a matter of official 'gobbledegook' ? The government's line is thus, 'while our gaols are not meant to be a pleasant experience, they're relatively tolerable ? Suggesting if you were to do your time, remain compliant with both staff and the rules, all's OK ?

The reality however, for a new bloke doing his 'boob' for the first time, unless he has some meaningful protection inside - he'll find gaol a bastard of a place with buckets of fear and loneliness, and never been able to sleep soundly, in his two or three out,'peter' ! It's this unofficial impost that makes going to prison so frightening for most new blokes ! It's a real disgrace, and a blight on our allegedly enlightened community, as we rapidly approach 2015 ! So terrified was this one young 24 years old bloke, he necked himself in Parramatta Gaol on one sticking hot, January night. It was my first suicide (in gaol) as case officer and a detective. His parents were totally devastated, he only had 9 months to cut out, and they'd put him in a one out slot, bad mistake I told the Coroner, but who'd be able to predict this poor buggers fear eh ?

o sung wu,

There was no derision, remember? That was your own misinterpretation. We already cleared this up (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6635#20037) and now you make the same claim as if your original charge still stood. That's dishonest.

I have not just quoted statistics with you either. I have provided reasoned argument based on evidence and instead of explaining why I'm wrong, you either misread what I say and then make false accusations; ignore me (which is fine) only to timidly snipe at me in your posts to others; or you respond with some half-baked response that amounts to little more than, "Look son, you just don't know what you're talking about!"

Your evasion, sniping and dishonesty only suggest to me that I'm right and that you really don't have much to contradict what I say, but are upset with it anyway because it contradicts your politics or makes you question just how much you really knew beyond your day to day experiences.