Prison may not work for them, but it works for us

Streeter

This article seems like nothing more than a load of self-serving claptrap by someone with a book to flog.

Take the example of the imprisoned father: Dalrymple is using the fact that Mr. Clarke was "affected" (whatever that means) by the case of the imprisoned father to suggest that Clarke lacks sympathy for the man's children and their mother. Yet what have those victims gained out of the man's imprisonment? Nothing. In fact, he now has even less chance of paying support than before. Perhaps Mr. Clarke, while accepting the six week sentence as perhaps fair punishment, noted that, in week seven, nobody was any better off than before. (Except, perhaps, Mr. Dalrymple, who maybe gets a warm, fuzzy feeling from having his tax used to bang up delinquent fathers.)

The author mentions re-offending rates by those on bail or probation, but conveniently ignores re-offending by those who have served time. I would have thought that this was also important, if not particularly helpful for his specious argument.

The point is that the prisoner and the doctor are both right: prison prevents that criminal from burgling the doctor's house. But since we cannot lock up all criminals indefinitely, he will eventually gain his freedom and the chance to burgle again. Then he will need help and, if he gets it, the benefit will be to both he and the doctor. And society as a whole.

Difficult? Yes. Unlikely? Maybe. But there is nothing rotten or toxic about wanting to improve rehabilitation.

To see something rotten, look at the last paragraph in the article, where Dalrymple attempts to equate incontinence with something voluntary.

JohnBUK

Streeter, certainly we all look forward to the day when "rehabilitation" is cracked, works like a dream and all can avoid gaol, in the meantime, what do you suggest?

jwk

affected:

1. to impress the mind or move the feelings of: The music affected him deeply.
2.assuming or pretending to possess that which is not natural: Her affected wealth and social pedigree are so obviously false that it's embarrassing

Aiden

@Streeter:

Evidently, you believe those who hurt others should not be afforded every possible consideration, whereas those who strive to protect the law-abiding should be ruthlessly condemned.

Good luck with engineering your utopia.

JohnAnt

Nor is the dead victim helped by the incarceration of a murderer - but we don't let the matter drop because of that.
One might say that the non-provider for his children has caused his own unemployment: it was a fairly predicatble result of making himself unavailable for his employer.
In other European countries such self-inflicted unemployment results in benefits being withheld for a period, or stopped entirely. The shock effect is usually amazingly salutary.
We should introduce that here.

merlinthepig

A superb article, Mr Dalrymple, and welcome back.

Streeter - read the article properly or consult your optician. The "it" referred to in the last paragraph as being voluntary is sentimentality and the sentence makes clear that incontinence is not; the word "except" is a kind of clue.

hendryk

Streeter - two points (if you are still looking at this)

1. What is the alternative to jailing the child maintenance dodger (assuming that it what he is, without more information)? How is he to be compelled to meet his obligations? If he remains unpunished where is his incentive to comply with the law? It might be that the punishment does not fit the crime in this instance, but without punishment or coercion of some kind what is the value of the law?

Secondly, I don't think TD would say that rehabilitation is without value. But he is saying (I think) that prison has value whether or not it manages to rehabilitate the offender (it would no doubt have even more value if it did that as well). And the value it has is that it prevents the offender, more or less temporarily, from committing further crimes and provides (one would suppose) some incentive against people committing crime in the first place.

The prevention of further offences would no doubt be a worthwhile consequence of prison; but it is an error to conclude from that truism that prison is not worthwhile even though many, if not the majority, of people who have gone to prison go on to reoffend when they are released.