But they are evil! Why else would they be in prison in the first place so you must crush their twistes minds with every humilation possible and then force them by any means to become good humans again out of fear for more punishmant ... why change that wonderful, established system, that has proven to work so well?
The fact that it doesn't work in one sense (containing people) is the reason it might work in another sense (reforming people). If the majority of inmates are serious about reform then this will have a powerful '100th monkey' effect on new inmates.
Can't help but dream that private prisons could do like this and save money on guards, cooking, property, etc.. housing aggressive prisoners have got to be expensive, compared to housing non-aggressive ones.
I guess that either (a) regulation mandates security / poor conditions, or (b) nobody is quite crazy enough to try and make money by disrupting the private prison business :)
In Norway, we tend to follow a non-aggressive approach to prison and despite much higher standards than say in the US, the cost per prisoner isn't significantly higher.
Prison guards in Norway are essentially university educated social workers. American prison guards from what I've read are essentially just guys with a stick. They just get a couple of weeks of training.
Guards in Norway work closely with prisoners and do activities with them and get to know them. This leads to lower levels of aggression. I've seen accounts of other European visiting Norwegian prisons remarking how much more calm the atmosphere is.
When you lock up people and treat them as animals you create anger, resentment and aggression which they take out on each other or the guards if given the opportunity.
I believe this is a principle which applies to all walks of life including how you raise children. Children who live under strict regimes which are heavily focused on punishment don't act well. They easily become violent and lack self control.
If there is always an overwhelming force present to punish every transgression you make, all you learn is to be behave when you are under threat. When that control is gone you have no ability to control yourself.
I'm sure it justifies a much more nuanced consideration, but at a crude economic level, I suspect gangs provide protection and economic opportunity in exchange for physical and legal risks; Norway provides both of those opportunities, to a high degree and to a broad section of society (social mobility in Norway is high), with much lower physical and legal risks attached, so there is competition for what gangs provide.
Also a very homogeneous population. Crime is higher among recent immigrants/refugees and their children[0]. It's hard to tease out how much is due to the prison/legal/welfare system and how much is due to the composition of society. Plus, it's a tough thing to debate openly because of accusations of racism, xenophobia, etc. In any case, it's certainly true that the US prison system is not very effective at reforming criminals and I'm sure the conditions are often appalling.
Saying "foreigners are more often criminals", while not necessarily xenophobic in nature (as in, you don't have to have strictly xenophobic thoughts to come to such a conclusion), doesn't lead to a nice and balanced conversation. That is leaving aside the correlation/causation dilemma which you're just sidestepping here (it's correlative, not causative - unless you have some sort of proof for that, which I doubt).
No that's not what I'm saying. I understand the issue is complex. I am saying that crime looks different in Norway because their population is very different than the US, and that in the parts of the population that are more similar to the US you have higher crime rates.
I never claimed immigrants are somehow intrinsically more disposed to crime. In fact, the report doesn't make that claim either. It shows that crime rates vary greatly based on where immigrants/refugees come from.
You should really stay away from this kind of outgroup = scum thinking. Tribalism and makes the world an actively worse place for having you in it (as the people in your ingroup gain little and everyone loses their humanity).
> But why aren't gangs forming in Norway? Lack of poverty? Lack of substantial immigration?
In other words, why isn't MS13 infiltrating Norway.
It's not simple, there are many causes of such a effect. But offering free education and other opportunities that are substantially better than crimes is a good guess.
I've never heard it mentioned as an issue. But consider that prison sentences in Norway are typically short, coupled with substantial rebates for good behaviour - as well as rewards such as chances at even more lenient conditions, and a system where prisoners start getting leave etc. That adds up to a lot of downsides to breaking the rules.
>How Norwegians and Americans See Inequality Differently
>“In Norway, people very much disapprove of inequalities that are due to bad luck,” Bertil Tungodden, a professor at the Norwegian School of Economics, and one of the paper’s authors, told me. “People in the U.S. are more willing to accept inequality, even if it reflects pure good luck for some and pure bad luck for others.”
Less of a problem because inequality is lower, and fewer people feel the need to join gangs for protection/to get by. Of course, it's also more homogeneous.
To some extent.. E.g even Anders Brevik has been given access to study and relatively high standards compared to elsewhere, though he's complained of isolation - only about a dozen prisoners total has been imprisoned under as strict terms as he has.
It's by no means perfect, but rehabilitation is a focus everywhere.
As someone who can't stomach Michael Moore's hyperbolic "documentaries," I'd recommend Breaking the Cycle[0] as a much better documentary on the topic. The warden of Halden, Norway's most kind prison,
visits a US facility so you get a good compare contrast of US vs. Norwegian facility.
> Can't help but dream that private prisons could do like this
Why would it matter? Are you operating under the assumption that they would then pass those savings along to the government? That's not really how privatization works.
Private prisons don't care about saving the government money, they care about maximizing profit. They say they can save the government money by offering to perform an existing service at a lower cost, but not dramatically lower. They negotiate minimum prison populations, thus ensuring a baseline income. They then proceed to do the absolute minimum possible to fulfill the contract while cutting costs in every way imaginable. There's no long term consideration given to sustainability of their practices or benefit to the prison population. Everything they do is to maximize the margins until the contract runs out and they can renegotiate for higher rates.
> Why would it matter? Are you operating under the assumption that they would then pass those savings along to the government? That's not really how privatization works.
Well, it would be if you imagine a perfectly competitive market for prisoner placement. That's not even approximately the current private prison situation, though.
> Well, it would be if you imagine a perfectly competitive market for prisoner placement.
That's a nearly impossible situation, the start up costs alone would be enough to dissuade most from entering the market. Most private prisons don't operate in their own facilities but instead manage or lease existing facilitates from the government.
There are plenty of private prisons in the US and most of them are terrible.
You’re right that the barrier to entry and long term prospects of running private prisons isn’t lucrative enough for more competitors to enter into.
Regulation is an issue because the country is divided on how to view imprionsment and criminals in general.
I think you really need a federal inspector general and federal regulation combined with delegation to the states to run their own prison system. That may even extend to the local level in order to prevent prejudice and rights violations.
So yeah, I think private prisons combined with strict, public oversight would benefit everyone.
The problem to think in those `Apac`s as a better way to the prisional system in Brazil is that it cant be take in the whole country.
It's easier to keep the desired inmate's behaviour in an Apac because they select who they want (so, they can avoid someone who might bring trouble, an option that the entire system doesn't has); another point is the inmate's fear in going back to a "normal" prison.
I live in Brazil, and discussions related to Apac already happened in some groups that fight for humans right, and I've never seen one of them thinking in Apac as a solution to our prisional system.
It does not looks like it would be possible to do this to the most of the prisioners. For example in 2014 we had a defict of 200k [1] vacancies, we dont even have the space needed to replicate the Apac to a high number of people
Why does the entire system need to be "fixed?" Imprisoning criminals are the #1 way to reduce crime. Enabling responsible individuals to escape that Hell is a good thing that is easy to accomplish, whereas teaching large swaths of the prison population to act responsibly is impossible.
Have you considered that perhaps prison shouldn’t be hell? To my knowledge there is no evidence that horrible prisons in any way reduce crime vs decent prisons. I believe there’s quite a bit of evidence in the other direction, and that prisons which emphasize learning life skills rather than surviving hell reduce recidivism.
Of course not, which is the point. No one wants to be in prison. Making prison a horrible place of violence and rape doesn’t make recidivism less likely.
If anything, the violent criminals that do reoffend will be more willing to do additional, more severe crimes to avoid capture. Instead of surrendering, the criminal might carjack someone and lead a high-speed chase, where the criminal is more likely to either escape or die than return to prison.
Making prisons low-key torture facilities doesn't help anyone other than the "tough on crime" politicians that encourage such conditions in order to get cheap votes from people whose moral development is at Kohlberg's stage 4 or lower.
> Imprisoning criminals are the #1 way to reduce crime.
Citation needed. What about reducing poverty? Why do people steal? Ask yourself that first before going for the more authoritaxn option of just locking people away - in a lot of cases, the damages caused by the crime are less than the cost of having someone locked up (paid for by the taxpayer).
But conversely, in Norway at least the possibility of being transfered to open prisons like this is a motivation for many prisoners to behave better as well. It doesn't need to solve the problem alone.
So motivation to avoid prison altogether doesn't work (given the need for prisons) but prisoners will be motivated by the possibility of transfer to a better prison? Not sure.
When you're caught you're caught, when you're in you'll want to make your stay as pleasant as possible.
Crime reporting and solving rates are relatively low, so most people get away with it [1]; only half the crimes are reported, and of those, less than half again (for violent crimes) or less than a fifth (for property theft) are solved. Statistically speaking you have less than 10% chance of getting arrested, and depending on the crime, even less chance of getting convicted.
So yeah, your odds of not going to jail when committing a crime are pretty good.
That some people commit crimes despite the risk of punishment does not mean the existence of punishment has no deterrent effect at all.
And nowhere did I suggest that all prisoners will be motivated to do what is needed to get into these open prisons. It's not necessary either (though desirable): every prisoner who does behave better to earn better conditions free up resources to deal with those who don't.
The more open prisons in Norway often have waiting lists of prisoners applying for transfers, and every indication I'm aware of is that prisoners often put in a lot of effort to qualify.
The population of Norway is about 50% that of Ohio USA in over 2x the area (5 million people). About 2.5% the population of Brazil. It’s a high cost of living nation with very limited poverty.
I don’t think you should use it in ANY comparison to Brazil.
Maybe they were trying to say that the need for these incentives might be moot. With such a great disparity in wealth, I’m sure their prison systems are probably still better than any alternative prison in Brazil.
Even if you think about this motivation, it does not work where the priosonal system has corruption and organize crime. In those case, people who are in the organization that "owns" the place, can be forced to have bad reviews/reject the transfer when offered.
It is horribly inefficient and takes way too long. Even if a judge decides something, people may simply appeal to a higher court. This can go on and on until they run out of either courts or money. I've read about legal cases that began in 2002 and only finished in 2013. It is likely that the defendant will be free during this time. Also, prison sentences are 30 years maximum.
American legal system seems to move much faster. They apparently encourage people to make deals and bargains rather than risk legal defeat.
58 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 63.1 ms ] threadThis is an idea with tangible value. Not just for Brazil, either.
This model is good for non-violent inmates, but it doesn't work for all cases.
I guess that either (a) regulation mandates security / poor conditions, or (b) nobody is quite crazy enough to try and make money by disrupting the private prison business :)
Prison guards in Norway are essentially university educated social workers. American prison guards from what I've read are essentially just guys with a stick. They just get a couple of weeks of training.
Guards in Norway work closely with prisoners and do activities with them and get to know them. This leads to lower levels of aggression. I've seen accounts of other European visiting Norwegian prisons remarking how much more calm the atmosphere is.
When you lock up people and treat them as animals you create anger, resentment and aggression which they take out on each other or the guards if given the opportunity.
I believe this is a principle which applies to all walks of life including how you raise children. Children who live under strict regimes which are heavily focused on punishment don't act well. They easily become violent and lack self control.
If there is always an overwhelming force present to punish every transgression you make, all you learn is to be behave when you are under threat. When that control is gone you have no ability to control yourself.
In other words, why isn't MS13 infiltrating Norway, if there's no competition for their illegal activities?
In the United States, for instance, there's a huge market for gang formation, and gangs thrive despite constant fighting for territory.
[0]: https://www.ssb.no/en/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikl... (mostly in Norwegian, but some parts in English)
I never claimed immigrants are somehow intrinsically more disposed to crime. In fact, the report doesn't make that claim either. It shows that crime rates vary greatly based on where immigrants/refugees come from.
It's not simple, there are many causes of such a effect. But offering free education and other opportunities that are substantially better than crimes is a good guess.
>“In Norway, people very much disapprove of inequalities that are due to bad luck,” Bertil Tungodden, a professor at the Norwegian School of Economics, and one of the paper’s authors, told me. “People in the U.S. are more willing to accept inequality, even if it reflects pure good luck for some and pure bad luck for others.”
Less of a problem because inequality is lower, and fewer people feel the need to join gangs for protection/to get by. Of course, it's also more homogeneous.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/inequal...
It's by no means perfect, but rehabilitation is a focus everywhere.
[0] - https://www.netflix.com/title/80217333
Why would it matter? Are you operating under the assumption that they would then pass those savings along to the government? That's not really how privatization works.
Private prisons don't care about saving the government money, they care about maximizing profit. They say they can save the government money by offering to perform an existing service at a lower cost, but not dramatically lower. They negotiate minimum prison populations, thus ensuring a baseline income. They then proceed to do the absolute minimum possible to fulfill the contract while cutting costs in every way imaginable. There's no long term consideration given to sustainability of their practices or benefit to the prison population. Everything they do is to maximize the margins until the contract runs out and they can renegotiate for higher rates.
Well, it would be if you imagine a perfectly competitive market for prisoner placement. That's not even approximately the current private prison situation, though.
That's a nearly impossible situation, the start up costs alone would be enough to dissuade most from entering the market. Most private prisons don't operate in their own facilities but instead manage or lease existing facilitates from the government.
You’re right that the barrier to entry and long term prospects of running private prisons isn’t lucrative enough for more competitors to enter into.
Regulation is an issue because the country is divided on how to view imprionsment and criminals in general.
I think you really need a federal inspector general and federal regulation combined with delegation to the states to run their own prison system. That may even extend to the local level in order to prevent prejudice and rights violations.
So yeah, I think private prisons combined with strict, public oversight would benefit everyone.
It's easier to keep the desired inmate's behaviour in an Apac because they select who they want (so, they can avoid someone who might bring trouble, an option that the entire system doesn't has); another point is the inmate's fear in going back to a "normal" prison.
I live in Brazil, and discussions related to Apac already happened in some groups that fight for humans right, and I've never seen one of them thinking in Apac as a solution to our prisional system.
[1] http://g1.globo.com/brasil/noticia/2014/01/brasil-tem-hoje-d...
A “nice” prison isn’t someplace you want to be.
Making prisons low-key torture facilities doesn't help anyone other than the "tough on crime" politicians that encourage such conditions in order to get cheap votes from people whose moral development is at Kohlberg's stage 4 or lower.
Citation needed. What about reducing poverty? Why do people steal? Ask yourself that first before going for the more authoritaxn option of just locking people away - in a lot of cases, the damages caused by the crime are less than the cost of having someone locked up (paid for by the taxpayer).
Crime reporting and solving rates are relatively low, so most people get away with it [1]; only half the crimes are reported, and of those, less than half again (for violent crimes) or less than a fifth (for property theft) are solved. Statistically speaking you have less than 10% chance of getting arrested, and depending on the crime, even less chance of getting convicted.
So yeah, your odds of not going to jail when committing a crime are pretty good.
[1]: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/01/most-violent...
And nowhere did I suggest that all prisoners will be motivated to do what is needed to get into these open prisons. It's not necessary either (though desirable): every prisoner who does behave better to earn better conditions free up resources to deal with those who don't.
The more open prisons in Norway often have waiting lists of prisoners applying for transfers, and every indication I'm aware of is that prisoners often put in a lot of effort to qualify.
I don’t think you should use it in ANY comparison to Brazil.
I wonder how people would feel about that given name liked Club Fed are already thrown around.
American legal system seems to move much faster. They apparently encourage people to make deals and bargains rather than risk legal defeat.