Slop buckets? Where are we, the 1800s? :blink:

I assume you think the intent of this would be as a deterrent to reduce crime. Crime's been falling year on year since 1996 and is now at one of the lowest rates it has ever been in modern Britain - even during the recession, when you'd normally expect crime to go up. Rough prison conditions if anything tend to be associated with higher reoffending rates in countries where prison conditions are far worse - dehumanising somebody by keeping them in conditions you wouldn't even put an animal in doesn't really set them up for being reintegrated into society afterwards. It's kind of pointless saying we should put prisoners in these conditions to psychologically break them into never committing crime again because we KNOW it doesn't work from centuries of trying it!

 

A soft justice system and soft prison system just encourages people to take the law into their own hands.

 

If someone robbed my house i would want to know that he is not having a cushy life behind bars and is paying a pretty hard price for robbing my house, regardless of whether tough conditions lead to reoffending or not at least justice is being seen to be done and the victim can have a small sense of satisfaction that the burglar is not having it easy in jail and instead is in a cold cell, has a bucket to do his jobs in and has very basic standards of food

 

Otherwise might as well just find out who the burglar is and rough him up with a baseball bat

The fact crime rates have gone DOWN since prison has gotten more 'cushy' should tell you that actually, no, it doesn't encourage people to take the law into their own hands. If you're going to make assertions you generally need to show they have some basis in fact. People don't like being in prison regardless of whether they have a bed of concrete or a plastic mattress.

I think the average 5 year old would understand that if you treat someone like a human being in prison they're more likely to behave like one when they're out.

But is it right that prisoners should have better conditions in jail than many of their victims?

 

Many of their victims wouldn't have a computer, tv, phone in room, hot shower etc

 

 

But is it right that prisoners should have better conditions in jail than many of their victims?

 

Many of their victims wouldn't have a computer, tv, phone in room, hot shower etc

The idea that there are that many people in this country who don't have those things is absolute rot Craig. Pretty much everyone in this country has access to a phone, a hot shower, a TV, and internet access (either their own or through a library). Further, prisoners aren't going to exactly be having unlimited access to these things.

The idea that there are that many people in this country who don't have those things is absolute rot Craig. Pretty much everyone in this country has access to a phone, a hot shower, a TV, and internet access (either their own or through a library). Further, prisoners aren't going to exactly be having unlimited access to these things.

 

One of the prime targets for attack or robbery or burglary are elderly people, many would not have a computer for example, elderly people especially ones living on their own in rough estates etc would probably not have much of that list bar a shower and even then its likely to be a basic one

 

 

One of the prime targets for attack or robbery or burglary are elderly people, many would not have a computer for example, elderly people especially ones living on their own in rough estates etc would probably not have much of that list bar a shower and even then its likely to be a basic one

Don't be bloody stupid Craig. The vast majority of elderly people are going to have phones. Given they get free TV licences the vast majority will probably have televisions as well - someone in their 70s will have grown up with television as the main form of entertainment and they aren't going to be so poor they can't afford a basic television. And the idea that prisoners are going to be getting anything beyond basic showers is laughable.

 

Many won't have a computer, yeah. Many won't have any desire for a computer (anecdotal evidence, but my job requires me to talk to a lot of pensioners each day and most don't have email and seem almost proud of being anti-technology), but in any case if they did have a desire for internet access they could very easily get it from their local library.

Pensioners are victims of crime far less than the common perception anyway. The most common victim is a male in his 20s - also the most common perpetrator for many crimes (and overall I think).

 

It's one of the reasons why the Police and Crime Commissioner position is a joke - like any election, older people are more likely to vote when they're the ones less likely to be affected by what they're voting for.

Pensioners are victims of crime far less than the common perception anyway. The most common victim is a male in his 20s - also the most common perpetrator for many crimes (and overall I think).

 

It's one of the reasons why the Police and Crime Commissioner position is a joke - like any election, older people are more likely to vote when they're the ones less likely to be affected by what they're voting for.

 

That's VIOLENT crime. Older people are frequently the target of fraudsters, by phone, at the door, and others who use bullying techniques on the fragile, either physically or mentally. In the last 2 years my dad has been taken in someone purporting to be microsoft, and had his credit card details stolen probably at a petrol station. As have other elderly neighbours of ours targeted by scammers after their money. The police will (rightly) be bothered by violent crime, but not bothered by fraud unless it's juicy sums and headline news.

That's VIOLENT crime. Older people are frequently the target of fraudsters, by phone, at the door, and others who use bullying techniques on the fragile, either physically or mentally. In the last 2 years my dad has been taken in someone purporting to be microsoft, and had his credit card details stolen probably at a petrol station. As have other elderly neighbours of ours targeted by scammers after their money. The police will (rightly) be bothered by violent crime, but not bothered by fraud unless it's juicy sums and headline news.

It certainly used to be the case that young men were the most likely to be victims of crime. However, as you point out, that may no longer be the case when cybercrime is added to the mix.

 

The peak age for committing crime is around 15. One rather interesting article I read some time ago introduced an interesting theory for why crime has continued to fall despite the poor state of the economy for the last five years which would normally have seen an increase in crime. The peak in crime in the UK and in many other countries came roughly 15 years after restrictions started to be introduced on lead in paint and petrol. Those restrictions were introduced because lead was shown to be particularly harmful to the brains of babies and very young children. It may be the case - and the evidence so far is purely circumstantial - that an unforeseen benefit of the measures has been to reduce criminal behaviour. The fact that the same phenomenon has been experienced in many different countries certainly adds weight to the theory although a good deal more research would be required before it can be confirmed (or otherwise).