Crime and Punishment - Arizona Style

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Janos

The only problem is that most people don't think they'll get caught. And US prisons are worse than ours, but they have a far higher population.

This fact seems always to be missed by the "prison works" and make 'em pay half-wits.

If we spent the money on effective policing and better education the result would surely be an improvement?

That said there is a big problem with the system - that is sentencing. Letting people out that are a risk is wrong and keeping people in that are not is wrong. However, the UK system seems to do both with equal ease.

Chris

[Mr T.]

From watching films like 'Brubaker' (a true strory) to just about any other documentary on prison life in the US, it is obvious to see that certain states (California for example, up unil recently when that Fuckwit Arnie became 'Governator') took a more liberal line in the incarceration of crims, which then ranged to the completely-bleedin'-hatstand states like, well, most of the Deep South, which border of the 'Four Yorkshiremen' sketch from Python.

And who is to blame?

The institutions which enact this form of overtly punitive treatment?

Or the Halls of Authority which allow and encourage it (evidently egged-on by an all too willing local electorate who vote in everyone from the local mayor, the chief of police, the local sheriff etc.)?

The so called 'Bible Belt' in the US can often be a hot-bed of reactionary, Neo-Con Baptist zealots who are all too in favour of the 'fire and brimstone' approach to 'healing' criminals and 'saving their souls' through the punishment (NOT rehabilitation!)-centric prision systems.

It works on the basis where the local electorate take the attitude of "well, if we vote your ass into office, you'll do just what we damned-well tall ya, Bubba." The elected official, seeking only to keep his position, will then do what he sees as being 'popular' to keep his electorate happy and himself in office. The 'Parliament of Whores' symdrome: say, do and/or promise anything (regardless of how extreme or reactionary) to the mob as long as you keep the reins of power (regardless of how local that power might be).

[off topic: ON]Just one reason I'm in favour of the Lords remaining a non-elected chamber. These guys don't have to curry favour with anyone: they are there as a public service and as a method of checks-n-balance on the Commons (the 'Whores').[off topic: OFF]

Rue the day we see its like here.