Why not? They're still people. They've just done things that we hate. Things that make life distinctly more horrible for other people.

So segregate them from the rest of the population and try to rehabilitate them.

Is there a limit on how far you can disregard the prisoner's wellbeing for the aim of deterrence? Out of interest, where should we set that limit?

Besides, I don't think it really makes much of a difference. A lot of prisons are going to be pretty decent. It's not like Lee Murray in his Moroccan prison cell, which holds 20 and has a hole in the floor to crap in.

This one just looks like it's an IKEA showroom, and that's probably more of a deterrent. Who wants twenty years in there?

Do they even sell CRT TVs on a widespread basis? I would have assumed that if you wanted to buy a TV, a flatscreen would be the most available option.

I still have a weird reaction where any time I see one I go "ooooh snazzy TV!" when really 90% of TVs are probably flatscreen.

You can pick up free CRT TVs on craigslist, I've seen people giving away old model big screen tvs with the only stipulation being that you have to pick it up and they wont help you

Has anyone itt explained how having comfortable surroundings in prison helps people to not reoffend? Phil those stats are obviously telling but I would guess it has more to do with something else that the Swedes are doing right.

Just a guess, but parhaps their prisons are not as violent as ours, something i'm certainly in favor of. This is a variable that is more obviously (to me) linked to the effectiveness of a rehabilitation program.

are they getting better health care or more health care?

I wonder how many times this convo have been had over the years.

"What? You're gonna give the prisoners hot food? GMAFB."

"What? You're gonna give them mattresses? GMAFB."

"What? You're gonna give them TV's thinner than a foot? GMAFB."

Penal Factories are the obvious answer to punishment/rehab.

Have prisoners make high tech value added goods for Chinese worker equivalent, or £2 an hour, which ever is less.

1. Profits raised go into community wealth fund to pay for schools, hospitals, etc. This way prisoners are literally giving back to the community.

2. Prisoners are only able to spend 20% of their wages whilst in Prison, this way they will accumulate aprox £41,000 over a ten year stretch, so will not have to re-offend when leaving as they are cashed up. Numerous options can be attached here, such as a tax on lump sum recieved, forced purchase of training education etc.

3. Prisoners having something to put on CV/Resume.

4. Prisoners are punished by having to work a ****ty job for low pay and loss of liberty, and rehabed by earning some real money and having a real job.

5. Winning.

^ fine by me

Their reoffending rates have been falling since a 2002 change of direction from the UK/Us system of just warehousing people and assuming it works. Whilst im sure the furniture and such doesnt directly effect reoffending on its own, its pretty clear its part of a process of rehabilitation.

I dont want to go there, but the line about treating people like animals so they act like animals does seem to apply. You are correct that there probably is more correlation than causation within this specific part of Sweden's prison system, but at the same time whilst not "5 star", their conditions are pretty good and yet people arent going out and committing more crime to be sent back.

It reminds me of those stories in the Daily Fail that come up every so often. They will be short on news so they will find some kind of story which shows that prison is soft, such as inmates being able to watch TV then they will bring up reoffending rates and point at both saying "see!".

Except in this thread we only have the first part yet people are still pointing at that one thing going "see?" and most people stumbling into the thread are like "yeah man, i see, but what is your point" and the reply is "the cheek of it, prison should have people frozen in carbonite for 23 hours a day, then on the 24th hour they are let out into the 'rape zone' for 'entertainment', then once a month for a treat we will fight them in gladitorial combat in the Thunderdome on live PPV and the winners gets to continue their sentence. The losers if they survive have their sentence extended by a month. The dead are ground up and served to the winners as food."

Honestly, i dont know if Ikea furniture and nice gym equipment is the answer. But i do know that the deterrent effect of prison is a myth so im happy to go for the 5 star prisons options right now even if you are right and it could be tweaked slighty to be even more effective, cos its currently lightyears ahead of where we are now.

I had a dream/idea (cant remember which) recently. America in 30 years is busto and they need a way to reduce prison populations. So they set up gladiatorial battles between prisoners and televise them, thus reducing prison population, setting up a deterrent and selling the rights to a tv network for muchos dollars.

I agree with you that this 5* prison stuff is better for everyone than a violent/rapey prison (US model).

Has anybody ITT explained how having uncomfortable, miserable living conditions helps act as a significant deterrent to people who commit serious crimes?

I don't think prison conditions are going to make people reconsider their position on rape the next time they're in a dark alley. Non-rapists aren't going to start raping, and I'd bet rapists don't really care either way.

Really bad conditions might make people less inclined to commit crimes like fraud, but it's not like a hefty prison sentence is magically offset by IKEA furniture and a TV.

toss the salad

Well, it probably makes someone less likely to want to go to prison. Regardless, I want them to have the minimum needed to live because A) its cheaper and B) their victim probably wants them to suffer somewhat.

If the victim is cool with Joe Rapist getting full gym facilities and a daily foot spa because it will help them to be nicer in future, then i'm cool with it too.

There has probably been at least a hundred movies based on this general concept.

Weirdly, none were good enough to be memorable to me, except Running Man and the Death Race remake, though that one is mainly through recency bias.

Does the future victim of a crime that hasnt happened yet get a say in the process?

Assuming you dont have a way of contacting them, no

Cant we just assume they dont want that future crime to happen?

Ive yet to meet a victim of a crime who enjoyed the experience.

Victims should be in the jury so that the verdict will have their approval!

Edit: Adressing the victim's or other people's desire for revenge/justice in designing prisons isn't nearly as important as reoffending rates etc imo.

I dont see how or why a hypothetical victim of a hypothetical crime would get a say in how a prisoner that is serving time for a real crime against a real victim is treated.

Everyone has a stake in how the prisoner is dealt with, true. However, the victim has a much bigger stake compared to everyone else.

I'd wager that most people don't want to be imprisoned against their will for five plus years, regardless of the conditions of said imprisonment. It's not like they're not going to pause and ask: "Well, does it have IKEA furniture?".

If you were locked in a hole with daily torture/rape sessions, then I think people might be deterred from committing non-violent crimes, but that'd be rather inhumane.

I don't get how the victim wishing ill on the prisoner comes into it at all. If a significant number of victims feel this way, maybe we should work on helping them let go of their urge to exact revenge, instead of caving in and exacting it for them.

Also, IKEA furniture, a communal TV and a treadmill hardly constitutes "full gym facilities and a daily foot spa".

Everytime I read a new story about the Japanese nookular crisis I think to myself, what does a Swedish furniture company have to do with all this?

You've won me over. Taking jerbs from others tho.

I think you have missed the point. If there is an answer to stop future crimes from occurring by rehabilitating someone then its clearly in the interest of everyone to do that even if the victim of the previous crime disagrees.

I read an article a while back which said the majority of crimes in the UK are performed by people who have already been in prison. So consider just how much better the country will be if we halve reoffending rates from the current 70% down to the Swedish 35%. Hypothetical future crime is simply a process of statistics and the fact is these future crimes certainly need to be considered when it comes to designing a legal system.

Our penal system is our competitive advantage LDO.

They can only do jobs that it can be proven would otherwise be done over seas.

There could be numerous perverse incentive problems, but hey, no solution is perfect.

I would choose Sweden. On a related note, what dogfood would you choose to eat, Alpo or Purina?

It doesnt matter which one I would choose, because I DONT WANT TO RAPE ANYONE. Asking me what I would prefer is no kind of evidence for the deterrent nature of prison environment, any more than asking you what kind of dogfood you would prefer to eat is evidence for what kind of dogfood you should buy for your pet. You arent asking the target audience, it doesnt make any difference.

Or are you just saying you refuse to believe any facts or information that doesnt jibe with your kneejerk intuition?