Governments are the appropriate provider of some services.

[Seos]

On the contrary. All the evidence in Ireland is that as sentences served grow shorter, serious crime increases.

It is very important to back up views on the rate of crime increasing with statistics. A large majority believe the rate of crime is increasing even when it isn't.

It is even more important to back up with statistics if you use the phrase "all the evidence".

[Odyessus]

It is very important to back up views on the rate of crime increasing with statistics. A large majority believe the rate of crime is increasing even when it isn't.

It is even more important to back up with statistics if you use the phrase "all the evidence".

If you disagree with my statement, you are at liberty to produce statistics to prove me and the "large majority" wrong.

[Seos]

If you disagree with my statement, you are at liberty to produce statistics to prove me and the "large majority" wrong.

I don't have a view of the accuracy of the second half of your sentence: "as sentences served grow shorter, serious crime increases." as I don't know the statistics.

I would guess that the first part is probably incorrect "All the evidence in Ireland is that" as in cases of human behaviour I have never seen all the evidence supporting only one position.

As I don't know the statistics then you could easily win me over to your point of view if you would just show me some that support it.

[Odyessus]

A couple of points on prisons.



It's recently been reported that our prisons are overcrowded, there being a 105% occupancy rate. That's not overcrowding. Transatlantic jets have a 105% occupancy rate.




As for the old punishment/rehabilitation argument, we are actually in a position to make some headway.
Taken for granted sexism in Ireland means that men in the 'Joy do reasonably hard time while a few hundred yards away the women suffer a regime that would make the wettest prison reformer do a double take.

Is the women's rate of recidivism significantly lower?

To get a statistically valid answer women should be housed in, say, Castlerea for a few years and the Roscommon men forced to do strict health and beauty porridge in the heart of Dublin.

I think we all know the answer to that one. A more interesting study would be if we had private prisons and paid them a bonus for every prisoner who did not re-offend for at least three years after release.

The profit motive would soon lead them to discover whether the carrot or stick was more effective in dissuading their charges from re-offending. Of course safe-guards would have to be put in place to protect the basic human rights of prisoners, such as comprehensive CCTV coverage of the prison which could be consulted in case of complaint.

Likewise the state would have to be prepared to allow a more relaxed regime in cases where the prison felt this approach was more likely to rehabilitate offenders.

Either way, private prisons would be incentivised to find out what worked for them: i.e. increased profits, which would also work for us: i.e. reduced recidivism and prison costs.

[ibis]

On the contrary. All the evidence in Ireland is that as sentences served grow shorter, serious crime increases.

There are many people attacked, robbed, raped, seriously injured, even killed every year by people who have been released early from prison. It is self evident that these crimes could not have occurred if the criminal was still in prison.

It is also self-evident that unless you lock every single criminal away for life, they will at some point be released. If on release they re-offend, they fit the picture you have just drawn.

Therefore it should be clear that reoffending on release does not prove the need for longer sentences. I'll spell it out anyway, just in case.

Say we lengthened all sentences by two years right now. That gives us a two year hiatus before criminals start to be released at exactly the same rate as before - two years where, no doubt, the proponents of longer sentencing would claim their method worked. When criminals started to be released again after the two year hiatus, and the reoffence rate rose once again to its previous levels, the longer sentence crowd would clamour for yet longer sentences - until eventually we reach the position where every sentence is for life, since that is the only way to avoid reoffence on release entirely.

It's surprising what you can do with stupidity, as long as you're consistently stupid. Regrettably, that's never been a problem.

[Paddylekker]

I'm trying to work out how transatlantic jets have a 105 per cent occupancy rate.

Aer Lingus can only manage 72 per cent.

[JCSkinner]

OK - a simple proposition, but one it appears some disagree with:

Governments are the appropriate provider of some services.

If you accept there should be formal governments, then what other purpose might they have for the populace only to provide services?

[Odyessus]

It is also self-evident that unless you lock every single criminal away for life, they will at some point be released. If on release they re-offend, they fit the picture you have just drawn.

Therefore it should be clear that reoffending on release does not prove the need for longer sentences. I'll spell it out anyway, just in case.

Say we lengthened all sentences by two years right now. That gives us a two year hiatus before criminals start to be released at exactly the same rate as before - two years where, no doubt, the proponents of longer sentencing would claim their method worked. When criminals started to be released again after the two year hiatus, and the reoffence rate rose once again to its previous levels, the longer sentence crowd would clamour for yet longer sentences - until eventually we reach the position where every sentence is for life, since that is the only way to avoid reoffence on release entirely.

It's surprising what you can do with stupidity, as long as you're consistently stupid. Regrettably, that's never been a problem.

So I see.

................