Heartland

King of Byblos wrote: how about an ecenomic argument:
teating offenders as human beings in the hope that it will reduce the rate of re-offending frees up funds to spend on Army living conditions, the NHS etc building more prisons don't!.


......................
on a larger scale this is all a bit of inter-departmental sabre rattling pre a change in government. all the goverment agencies are tying to get column inches to ensure they have a upward budget review when the new person moves into 10 downing street

Does treating criminals better reduce re-offending? I haven't seen any proof of it, although in fairness, I haven't seen proof harsh treatment does it either. Crime rates, especially violent crime are rising fast, despite treatment of prisoners improving dramatically over the past fifty years. Here in Finnie, people are jailed only as the last resort, and they manage the highest rates of violent crime and murder in Europe, just ahead of Scotland, and a good bit ahead of England and Wales.

better society reduces reoffending
but most governments don't seem interested in that
.
...and i am definately not saying that the Uk is in anyway a role model of handling crime

canon docre wrote:I would be interested in any argument against them being allowed to vote. I don't really get it. I mean you can get to prison for some unpaid parking tickets, does that make you an outlaw without civil rights? I don't think so.

John Locke's Second Treatise on Government would probably be a good place to start if you want an argument against their voting. Certain crimes, he argues, place one into a "state of war" against civil society, as they are fundamentally un-reasonable. At that point the individual has removed himself from the social compact, and thus lost the benefits it confers.

Anyway, that's the 25-cent version of it.