The NSW Government announced expenditure of millions of taxpayer Dollars to build more prisons. Obviously with an expectation more offenders will be gaoled. However I wonder whether we're not trying hard enough to stop this malignancy of growing crime in society, and this erroneous perception the Courts are going soft on lawbreakers, particularly younger, first timers?

I wonder therefore if we could develop better strategies for interrupting this decline into a lifetime of crime at it's source. The young, first-timer who's crime(s) are sufficiently serious, the judiciary sends them to gaol. Why a prison environment? Perhaps some structured 'mandatory' trade training, or rural/agricultural development, but run along a modified military style - And 'most importantly', completely away from the influence of other more seasoned, and hardened criminals?

Criminal activity has to be punished, and there is not enough punishment now.

In my many years of coming across crimminals very few if any are sent to prison until they commit multiple crimes. This is especially true among the Indigenous population.

Sorry o sung wu, when many of these so called first offenders have committed 50 or 60 break-ins, & have the whole lot treated as a first offence, I just can't agree with you.

It is a pity there are no more continents to discover, so we could deport the little buggers.

Now if we had chain gangs, working on the roads, & worked the bludgers really hard, prison on the roadside might be a real deterrent. The holiday camp for crims, the prisons have become is the real problem.

o sung wu,

While assaults are on the rise, the overall crime rate has been going down since the early ‘90s in most Western countries. Since rates have been recorded, the overall crime rate peaked in the ‘70s. If you want to go by murder rates (which are considered the most reliable due to their steadiness and the lack of ambiguity as to what constitutes a murder), then crime peaked in the ‘30s. However, if we were to compare now with all of history, then we’re currently living in the most peaceful times by just about any measure.

The new prisons being built in NSW are possibly due to a combination of an increasing population, increased vigilance (e.g. domestic violence, child sex abuse) more and more acts being criminalised all the time, and mandatory sentencing. I’m not sure. But the statistics from the ABS suggest that a rising crime rate is not the cause.

<<Why a prison environment? Perhaps some structured 'mandatory' trade training, or rural/agricultural development, but run along a modified military style - And 'most importantly', completely away from the influence of other more seasoned, and hardened criminals?>>

There's a lot of research looking into alternatives to prison since, as you allude to, prison is often not ideal. Further to what you suggest, restorative justice measures are proving to be successful in a (so far limited) number of situations.

Your question “Why a prison environment?” is one that is constantly asked by criminologists. Prison is problematic for all sorts of reasons, and balancing the sentencing aims of 'restoration' and 'retribution' is contradictory and seemingly impossible. History kind of just lumped us with prisons. They were never intended to be the only, or even the main, solution.

Prisons make even bigger criminals and not much else. If you weren’t a criminal before going into prison, you likely will be once you’re released for two reasons: (i) prison is a highly stressful environment, and; (ii) there is no better place to learn how to commit crimes. Prisoners have a lot of time to talk and learn from each other’s mistakes.

Sorry, o sung wu, you were referring mostly to youth crime rates. Yes, from what I know, youth crime is on the rise.

I'm not sure about the relationship between rising youth crime rates and the need for new prisons, though. Especially since judges and magistrates try to keep young, first-time offenders out of prison for obvious reasons.

Hi there; TTBN, RUNNER, & HASBEEN...

All three of you are right. Most young first-offenders (described as 'boys' in the lingo, 18 - 25 years old) have committed many offences and probably haven't been caught. Many have graduated through a series of Boys Homes, and when the prison authorities finally get them, they're hardened little thugs.

Oddly most want to graduate to an adult gaol as a status symbol. Therein lies the problem gentlemen. Once these little buggers fall under the influences of older, more manipulative hardened crims, there's virtually nothing you can do for them. The trick is - try keeping them out of gaol?

A ridiculous statement I agree. However about a third of them, you can probably do something with them. Determine their interest, and steer them toward a (disciplined) facility that can embrace and enrich those interests. As a relieving sergeant in the bush, local indigenous people who'd be locked-up countless times, for the usual three B's; boozing, belligerence and bashing, when the local Beak would sentence them to ninety days imprisonment with hard labour, we'd have em' working in around the Station and it's curtilages etc. And they were as good as gold, and more often then not, wanted to remain there, long after their period of detention expired?

From a purely fiscal point of view, I'm reliably informed it would cost more to keep an inmate in custody, in a gaol, than to house the same individual in a dormitory style facility, coupled with some form of technical or rural training? Even if only one, in ten 'boys', were successfully retrained, and kept out of trouble, wouldn't it be worth it? Believe me, I'm no soft touch, and as obsessive as anyone about criminals adequately paying for their crimes.

Thank you for your contributions all three of you.

One other problem with the current system is the fact that Juvenile crimes are not carried into adulthood.

I agree with this for minor things but anything involving violence, rape or sexual offenses should be carried into adulthood.

The thought they can do what they want as a child with no repercussions for the future makes some just not care.

Hi there A.J.PHILIPS...

The veracity contained in your second last paragraph has always intrigued me? There's no doubt that prisons, do (manifestly) contribute to crime, and the evolution of better and more skillful criminals. Regardless of however tightly run and organised they may be. Often described as colleges for criminals. Inside they operate much like a normal community, only with two seperate sets of Administrations. One deemed to be Official with normal executive powers; while the other; Informal and Unsanctioned, but nevertheless with the power of life and death over it's entire population.

Sentencing aims of restoration and retribution being contradictory?
It's the hope of all concerned, the offender, society, the judiciary, and police, that when an individual is sent to prison he'll see the error of his ways and seek out, that which is available to him, in order to help him rehabilitate himself so that he may return to society, as a free more enlightened individual. As well as understanding his rights, his responsibilities, and limitations in that community.

As with most things it comes down to a dollar amount. I'm not suggesting A.J.P the NSW government's additional expenditure for Corrective Services, is being entirely directed toward accommodating younger offenders. But lets say 15% or 25% of these additional beds, are being directed toward younger offenders. Then perhaps we can 'explore' other options, without adding further costs to that, which has already being allocated, and see if some alternative can be found.

I think it appropriate that I confess herein, not having any viable options available, in which to add to the mix. Just an idea.
Thank you for your contribution A.J.P, you'd know far more about this type of problem than I. Regrettably, I tended to see only the sequel to long periods of incarceration unfortunately. Occasionally, I muse quietly to myself - what a bloody waste.

Another case of the system failing.

5 Sudanese, 2 of them out on bail for other offenses committing more crimes.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/35389221/melbourne-family-wake-up-to-african-gang-in-their-home/#page1

'Like a nightmare': Family wake up to African gang standing over their bed

A gang of Sudanese teenagers, armed with wooden stakes, kicked down the front door of a family's home in Melbourne's outer west, during a terrifying home invasion.

The mother and father were threatened as they cowered in their bedroom while their five-year-old daughter slept nearby.

The family told 7 News on Wednesday of their horrific ordeal, awoken by five African teenagers standing over their bed at the Melton suburb of Kurunjang.

Evening to you PHILIP S...

You mentioned crimes against the person, where the judiciary should come down much harder on the perpetrators, than those who curtail their criminal activities only to property crime. I think most reasonable folk would agree with you.

Imagine if you will a young bloke, in the process of say committing, an aggravated burglary, is disrupted by a male occupant and in an attempt to make good his escape he strikes the bloke in the face, braking his nose, but still manages to escape the premises.

His Honour takes a dim view of this and sentences the young bloke to 3 years on top, out in two, provided he behaves. This is his first conviction, and he's never been inside a gaol. If such a scheme where young offenders are removed, or alternatively never actually sent to prison in the first instance, do you think he'd make an ideal candidate for this type of correctional treatment instead of gaol?

Sure, he was convicted of an offence 'against the person' Which ordinarily should or would exclude such an offender.....? It's a curly one for sure, nevertheless it has to be determined if such a cut-off point were to be examined.

Thank you for your contribution PHILIP S.

You’ve made a valid point regarding my comment on the contradictory nature of rehabilitation and retribution, o sung wu.

To some extent the two are the same, and to what extent they are the same will vary greatly from person to person. For example, if you or I were to go to prison, we’d both be damn sure to behave ourselves a lot more once we got out. But we’re more socially adjusted than most of the prison population, which is why we’re not there in the first place.

Unfortunately, those more likely to wind up in prisons aren’t so easily swayed by a prison environment, and the difficulty in preparing such people for life on the outside, by equipping them with more socially acceptable tools to cope with it, is difficult to do when we’re supposed to be punishing them at the same time. One can’t be done without negating the other to at least some extent.

Then there’s the public and the victims to consider, which further demonstrates how challenging and contradictory balancing the two can be:

The legal system could go completely one way by making prison as miserable and as psychologically torturous as possible for prisoners, with no attempts to rehabilitate inmates - which would keep the public very happy, but less safe in the long run since we’d be releasing even bigger, and more psychologically damaged, criminals into the public. Or it could go in the complete opposite direction, which would likely result in a higher rate of rehabilitation, but a very unhappy public.

Then there's the need for deterrence to further complicate matters, on which neither scenario seems to have much effect anyway.

It's a real mind fu... flip.

Don't get me wrong, I don’t want to downplay the importance of retribution in sentencing, nor do I want to dismiss public opinion entirely as the result of fear and ignorance. Retribution is an important part of criminal justice whether some like it or not, and our need for it is an evolved trait that we can’t just switch off or pretend doesn’t exist.

o sung wu = The answer is why mandatory sentencing is wrong, there are generally always exceptions to rules. One time, benefit of the doubt to apply, if re offends no.

I am not saying the judiciary should come down much harder on the perpetrators, what I said was that certain crimes should follow the perpetrator into adulthood, possibly I would expect some to make wiser choices knowing that certain actions will have a very adverse effect on their future prospects.

It also needs to be educated into children from an early age.

Respect of others etc to me should be a subject taught in primary school, will it work with everyone NO but it will work with some.
Regrettably that should be the job of the parents but too many get a big FAIL.

Backdoor slavery.
The rich cant enslave us legally so they are hoping to catch us all at some trivial misdemeanor and under the cloak of law and order make us all do their bidding or at least not bother them while they wallow in their troughs.

o sung wu,

Over-complicated.

Wind it all back and the proactivity that is needed is job skills as early as possible in school. Stream early for boys and girls. Don't irritate and demotivate them with education that is not welcomed by them.

Imagine a concentration on practical work skills in education for indigenous (as an example) living in the country. That would enable them to build, drive transport and heavy equipment, work on farms and so on. They would enjoy it and see it as valuable. Add the sports program that is already successful.

However, where indigenous are concerned that will immediately smack up against the wall of political correctness. The heads of black advocates would be exploding. All here know that.

However if you are serious about heading off problems with youth it is already too late and too hard where they have started offending. That is not to say that millions couldn't be spent on it for a small unmeasurable 'return'. That would suit advocates who would hoover the guvvy money up as usual.

You have a point there, mikk.

If the principal smokers of marijuana were affluent older white men and the principal consumers of Viagra were poor black men, then marijuana would be easier to get on prescription while selling Viagra would get you 5 years in prison.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_need_to_end_the_war_on_drugs

The war on drugs has been an abject failure on may levels, and is a big reason for today's prison populations.

mikk - You missed the biggest form of slavery, the majority of people in most countries are slaves to debt, mortgages, credit card debt etc.

More people have to work to pay off these, don't and you lose it and can be put in jail.

Many more people have no other option than to work or loose everything than there are people in jail.

Phil
They already have the debt and wage slaves firmly under control. Now they are after those evil freethinking types who refuse to knuckle under and serve their lordships.
They wont be happy until they have us all bowing and scraping or in a gulag somewhere. Manus or Nauru probably.
Or dead!
What a sad world we have become.

I seriously doubt that young first timers are sentenced to jail unless their crimes are extremely severe and society needs protection from them.

AJ Philips - Interesting seems to support what you say.

For over forty years, America's "War on Drugs" has accounted for 45 million arrests, made America the world's largest jailer, and damaged poor communities at home and abroad. Yet for all that, drugs in America are cheaper, purer, and more available today than ever before.

o sung wu, "Most young first-offenders (described as 'boys' in the lingo, 18 - 25 years old) have committed many offences and probably haven't been caught. Many have graduated through a series of Boys Homes, and when the prison authorities finally get them, they're hardened little thugs."

What is the chasm between them and the young men and women remembered on ANZAC Day?

Similarly, why do so many who started in most unsatisfactory circumstances still manage to live their lives as exemplary good citizens?

Where does choice and individual responsibility come into it?

Why no similar compassion and urgency to rescue where the many good kids and youth, male and female, are doing it really hard and are getting up that one more time every time that fate deals them another blow in life? Just ignore them as they must learn their lessons?

To my way of thinking i say these young people need training as in military training. A lesson in growing up fast, and respect of their sergeant, prison could go the other way.

There’s some good questions there, leoj. Each one of them so massive that they would justify their own discussion thread - or multiple discussion threads for each. They’re so big, in fact, that I’m reluctant to even get into one of them here, let alone all three, but here goes nothing…

<<What is the chasm between them and the young men and women remembered on ANZAC Day?>>

Many reasons.

One is that - since the invention of radio, television, and now the internet - youth have been increasingly forming their own subcultures because these new medium have allowed youth to communicate more than they could before such technology existed (i.e. through music, etc.). What this means is that memes have been increasingly acquired by youth ‘horizonally’ (i.e. from their peers) rather than ‘vertically’ (i.e. from their elders).

There was some validity to the moral panic sparked by rock ‘n’ roll and the Beatles, as much as I hate to admit it.

<<Similarly, why do so many who started in most unsatisfactory circumstances still manage to live their lives as exemplary good citizens?>>

Developmental criminology and biosocial criminology are entire branches of criminology that shed light on this. The answers will be different for every individual, but basically genetics, ‘transitions’, and ‘turning-points’ help to explain why.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=biosocial+criminology+genetics&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=transition+and+turning+points&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

<<Where does choice and individual responsibility come into it?>>

The free-will vs determinism debate will forever rage. To the surprise of many (and to the disgust and fierce objection of Libertarians), it’s possible to argue that we have no free will at all. It may just be an illusion. However, this can never mean that offenders are not held to account for their actions. The legal system could never work that way, no matter how much we may lack free will.

Long Bay Gaol's principal function is to manufacture criminals,and/or modify unsuccessful criminals into being better, more prosperous criminals. So says a middle aged bloke I know well (a 'bust' merchant) who's been in and out of prison his entire life and is hitherto, now known as just another 'boob rat'!

A.J.PHILIPS a qualified Criminologist, speaks of the contradictory nature of rehabilitation and retribution, describing in part how tough it is for governments to get the correct balance right in order to satisfy society's, and the victims need, for retribution, in some case perhaps, revenge? And at the same time, provide the necessary wherewithal, for the offender to attempt to restore himself, to a useful member of society. A massive ask, with no easy answer?

The smartest, the most innovative academics have been grappling with the problem for years. Come down too hard on inmates, you have unrest, dissension, ultimately rebellion. More often than not it's the weaker, more vulnerable prisoners who are at greater risk, when a prison is 'running hot' in a state of unrest (hostages, bashing's, and rapes etc).

Conversely, to allow inmates to participate in a more liberal, even more indulgent system of imprisonment, and they'll immediately take advantage of it. Perceiving it as a clear sign of weakness by those in authority. Gaols must be strict, but fair. Come on too hard, they'll burn the place to the ground (Bathurst Riots) Too lenient, well we've dealt with the liberal approach. Firm but Fair.

One thing we must do, absolutely. Whenever humanly possible; keep young first-timers, out of the Prison environment - And not allow; 'Long Bay Gaol to manufacture yet another (young) criminal'.

Thankyou for further expanding upon this complex question A.J.PHILIPS.

AJ Philips,

Dealing with your last para first, it could be argued by Western science, thinking of psychology especially, that we have no idea at all how our decisions are made. Of course others might put up counter views, including naturally enough criticism of our (Western) propensity to ignore or discount 5,000 years of Eastern contemplation of thinking.

The models of good values and behaviour and the heroes that were previously available to children and youth and were valuable during the trials of adolescence and achieving adulthood have been under increasing threat for some time. Maybe too, some of the questioning where it occurs and is done reasonably, is justified. Perhaps more often than not, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater too.

The biggest (development) gap I see is in the restricted opportunities for children and youth to take (calculated) risks that can help them to test themselves and strike new and constructive, positive paths different as they are necessarily must be to realise their independence from their parents.

Where schools don't even permit children, boys and girls, to play 'Red Rover' in the lunch break, or to climb trees in the park, we are overvaluing a false 'safety'. Similarly it was a damned stupid thing to do to de-tune previous risky boys pastimes or even to ban them, so that girls might have equality of outcome.

Essentially, where we don't allow boys and girls to take risks that are worthwhile in their perception, they will find gangs and the drugs and other diversions that go with that culture.

But even apart from all of that, there remains the simple incontrovertible fact that the greatest majority of people do not offend, well not seriously and not against other humans, but a small percentage do and notwithstanding the counselling, assistance and even punishments they are given.

I am asking that where the allocation of taxpayers money is concerned, that priority should be given to where there will be the return.

AJPhilips,

The thought crossed my mind that there are parallels between what we are now doing to older people, our own kin, by prioritising safety as the first consideration in aged care. It is restricting their independence, choice, impoverishing their later years and probably resulting in shorter survival times after being placed in institutions.

Such limitations and even bans are not just because of 'insurance demands' although that is usually given as the excuse, and in schools too. Short-sighted 'do gooders' are demanding it.

It would not surprise me at all if over-regulation isn't having the opposite effect to that intended by the control freaks who constantly demand more laws.

Hi there PHILIP S.

You mentioned a series of stats. apropos America's miserable attempt to interdict drugs. The number of Drug raids I've been involved in, reminded me what an old Inspector once said...you can't arrest your way out of this illicit drug business. And he was so right, and still is.

Education is probably the best start in curbing this awful trade. Knocking off the financiers, those at the top. Would be a plan as well? Cut off the snakes head will go a long way, at least by slowing it down. In Malaysia and Singapore they regularly execute traffickers, and it still hasn't interrupted the drug trade significantly? I saw it in confirmed in an article of the Singapore's 'Straits Times', can't recall the edition I'm sorry? Thanks for your contribution PHILIP S.

Hi there LEOJ...

Mate I'm buggered if I know. I'm a veteran and I recall vividly blokes obtaining weed from the yanks!

I guess it's the way some are brought up, if you come from a bad environment, or from poor circumstances, battling to put food on the table, crime seems to be a good way out. Especially if Dad is a poor role model, often pissed, gives Mum a regular flogging, all the poor little bugger wants, is to get out, they fall into bad company and the rest as they say, is history?

Look LEOJ, you'll get no argument from me, I guess that's why many social scientists get paid the big bucks trying to provide the right answers. I was a pug back in the late sixties, to the mid seventies, I fought initially 3 x 3 rounds up to regular 8 x 3 rds. even when I was in the job. Commissioner approved of course as long as you didn't bring disrepute to yourself or the job. Anyway, I always loved to blue, I could've just as easily hurt someone in a street stink and entirely wrecked my life and career! I think they call it 'happenstance' or something - Thanks for your contribution LEOJ.

the increase in drug usage both legal and illegal is the fruit of our society that has trashed absolutes. We are all responsible. Families structures and authorities have been destroyed by secular dogma that places the rights of the individual above the betterment of society. The increase in child abuse, violence, rebellion and divorce coincides with the decrease in our spiritual condition. We have replaced right and wrong with what is right and wrong for me. As in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah or as the days of Noah certainly sows us the end result.

Hi there SHADOW MINISTER...

Emmmm, you might be right, though it depends whether the matter is dealt with by the magistracy and not bumped-up to the District Court (Criminal Jurisdiction). Provided as well that it's not a Capital Offence, either.

Unfortunately many indigenous youths are handled far more harshly by some Courts, than really necessary. And in some instances, the courts are more lenient then they should be as well.

There doesn't appear to be any real consistency with the lower Courts, when it comes to young offenders per se. I honestly believe, some members of the judiciary do harbour some personal prejudices when it comes to younger offenders, and this is quite puzzling, given the high profile young aboriginal men and women receive, both at State and Federal level as well.

Thank you for your contribution SHADOW MINISTER, I do appreciate it, very much indeed.

G'day DOOG...

Introduce these young first-timers to military styled discipline? A tremendous idea I reckon. I wonder though if the discipline would actually work? When they're free, they wouldn't submit to societies rules, and simple standards of behaviour. Why then would they submit themselves to anything else? A great idea, if it would work?

Thanks for your contribution DOOG, it's appreciated.

'evening to you RUNNER...

I'm not at all a religious man, nevertheless much of what you say I agree, in principle. Over the last couple of decades we've seen the escalating erosion and breakdown of the family unit, where many siblings seem not to heed the basic rules and discipline of the family? Therefore the kid leaves home in a 'huff', with an entirely distorted perception of exactly where it is, they see themselves fitting-in to the community?

Years ago I recall quite clearly, we picked up this 19 year old real 'Joe Cool' for some minor matter, who in normal course of events would've been cut loose after we'd processed him. This stupid 'failed rocket scientist', managed to talk himself into a couple of nights in the overcrowded cells all through his 'motor mouth'.

That's OK, we'd normally just ignored him, and others like him, because we're generally too busy doing the paperwork. But he did manage to get up the nose of this regular 'boob rat' who was trying to get a bit of sleep in the noisy cells, from what I heard. Anyway, the long and short of it, our big mouthed hero, got a thorough flogging, necessitating his admission to St Vincent's Hospital across the Road, all through his big mouth?

Usually on Friday and Saturday nights Darlinghurst Station, gets very very busy and always under staffed. The cellular area usually has a dedicated staff of a Sergeant in Charge, and two or three constables to assist.

Some months later I noticed the same bloke had ultimately ended up on the 'Four-wheels' list, (Transport out to Long Bay) He got himself 3 months in the 'go slow', on an entirely unrelated matter?

Which tells me he'll probably never ever learn RUNNER. Despite the 'title' of this specific Topic. There are some individuals who'd you'd never be able to assist, irrespective what you tried to do for them.

Many thanks for your contribution RUNNER I do appreciate it.