Prisons – Do they work? What’s wrong with them?

Posted on by Opher

green- cover

Prisons

In my view prisons and incarceration are probably the most archaic and ineffective of the legal processes.

Here is what I think is wrong:

  1. They don’t work – far too many are locked up (they do not deter) and far too many reoffend (they do not deter) and far too many learn worse tricks inside (they encourage worse crime)
  2. They are too expensive
  3. The philosophy behind them is muddy

The muddy philosophy

  1. They are a deterrent for criminals
  2. They should be a punishment
  3. They keep criminals off the street
  4. They should be places where criminals are made to face their crimes and the effect on victims and atone
  5. They should equip prisoners with skills and qualifications in order to take a responsible place in society

It falls between stools. There is no doubt that some, a tiny minority, criminals need locking away where they can do no more harm. But are prisons places of punishment or places for re-educating?

The rest need releasing back into society so that they can find a place and no longer offend.

Opher’s solution

  1. I would use restorative practice along with social reparations in most cases of crime
  2. I would lock away criminals who are a major threat
  3. I would have two types of prison – one that would be geared to punishment and one that would be geared to restoring criminals and transforming them into useful citizens.

I want a system that makes the punishment fit the crime, doesn’t make worse offenders out of minor offenders, works as a deterrent and reduces crime.

Black and white knee-jerk punishments do not work. They are emotional responses. We need to apply advanced psychology.

Here are a few of my books. They are available on Amazon in both paperback and on kindle.

Anecdotes – paperback just £6.95  Kindle – just £1.99 or free on Kindle Unlimited

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anecdotes-Weird-Science-Writing-Ramblings/dp/1519675631/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459501044&sr=1-7&keywords=opher+goodwin

More Anecdotes – paperback just £7.29  Kindle – just £2.12 or free on Kindle Unlimited

http://www.amazon.co.uk/More-Anecdotes-Essays-Beliefs-flotsam/dp/1530770262/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459501044&sr=1-1&keywords=opher+goodwin

My other books are also available. There is some unique to suit most tastes if you like something thought provoking and alternative.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Opher-Goodwin/e/B00MSHUX6Y/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1459501044&sr=1-2-ent

The Legal system – Restorative Practice.

Posted on by Opher

P1080898

Restorative Practice

At school, as a Head of Year, Deputy Head and Headteacher, I used Restorative Practice to solve incidents. It is a philosophy which is efficient and highly effective.

You bring together the parties concerned and establish what has happened. This is often achieved through questioning but may require witness statements or further investigation. Once the facts have been established the people involved are confronted with their actions, the consequences on others and guided through what they should have done. Then suitable punishments are ascribed. I always asked both parties what they thought the punishment should be.

This is what I found:

  1. It was relatively easy to establish what had taken place
  2. Once confronted with evidence the guilty party invariably admitted their guilt
  3. Rarely was it one sided – there were mistakes made by all parties to one degree or another
  4. The punishments selected by the victims were usually lighter than I would have imposed
  5. The punishments selected by the guilty party were usually harsher than I would have imposed.
  6. By the end I had established what had gone wrong, who was to blame (and to what degree), and what should be done to make amends.
  7. Both parties left feeling that justice had been done
  8. Both parties were usually guilty to an extent
  9. The punishments fitted the crime
  10. Both parties accepted the verdict and felt the punishments were appropriate
  11. There was modelling of what should have happened.
  12. It was speedy.
  13. Both parties apologised and made up and could appreciate the impact, physically, emotionally and psychologically, on the other.
  14. The participants left the room without feeling aggrieved, feeling they had been listened to and justice had been done. Their punishments were an atonement.

I believe the Legal System could adopt a similar process for most, even serious, crimes. For perpetrators to see the effect they were having on real victims and for victims to see and understand real reasons that perpetrators had for committing crimes and for punishments to be applied fairly – it is a win win for me.