I haven't seen much strong support for this, particularly if the additional funds are spent on treatment/rehabilitation programs.

Misleading and over-simplifying video.
This dog still has all the issues it did before. It can't rehabilitate in just 3 days. If another stranger will approach that dog, it will revert back to its old habits. It will take many months if not years of work to make it 'normal' again.

Humans with arthritis swim for exercise too, because it's low impact, and it should improve the cat's quality of life. Swimming is also used to rehabilitate injured horses.

*length=34

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I love how the Sift suddenly believes in small government as soon as the topic shifts to drugs.


Personally, I want a penal system that does what a penal system -should- do: rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated, and isolate those who cannot from the rest of us. The war on drugs attempts and achieves neither. What I do -not- want from a penal system is one that provides a pool of slave labor for politically connected investors. The war on drugs is -really- good at that one.

It's a pure waste of money that could be better spent researching addiction, and how to treat it...something that has gotten little attention and less funding.

Peter Hitchens makes a good point about Brand not being able to deal in anything other than generalities though... good will, benevolence, etc are attitudes not plans/strategies... and aren't easily tied to a dollar figure... which is what the CRUX of the debate is about... some people place more value on $, some on compassion


Peter Hitchens tries to feign compassion by saying if drug addiction affects one family of course they care... well, compassion isn't compassion if you limit it only to yourself or those that directly affect you... REAL compassion isn't delimited by whether or not you know the person in question or not... REAL compassion is self-less

when the jingle in your pockets affects your "compassionate" view... you don't have a very compassionate view in the first place ( i guarantee some blockhead will try to take this to an extreme, such as "then why don't you give up all your money to help those less fortunate than you" instead of realizing that's not then end of the spectrum where my arguement comes from... it actually comes from reality where people don't wanna have to give up luxury [as opposed to necessity] to help someone that they can just as easily ignore or vilify)

and while the comment earlier about incarceration in the US is "somewhat" on the mark, lets not forget that the US prison system exists as it is primarily because its a private, for profit, industry... which shapes drug policy (gotta have your customer base - i mean inmates)

criminalization has always had an impotent effect on controlling drugs... from prohibition to THE WAR ON DRUGS (and the resulting chaos one finds in Mexico because of it)

there are PLENTY of countries that currently use legalization/rehabilitation as a much better deterrent/control; but we don't want to talk about those... because someone is making money of keeping them illegal, and where'd the poor politicians get their kickbacks from then?

Why is this "thing" still breathing, let alone making money from books etc. Study it behind the locked doors of an asylum, but don't make a perverse, voyeuristic, video which alludes to finding a cause. Rehabilitation? f'ck that. Some crimes warrant the perpetrators eradication from our species.

I had to look up the "We oppose the teaching of...critical thinking skills." bit.

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

But they do support beating snot-nosed punks at least...
"Classroom Discipline –We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas."

But damn it, they want to illegalize pornography, this cannot stand!
"Addictive Behaviors – We encourage state and federal governments to severely prosecute illegal dealers and manufacturers of addictive substances and pornography. We urge Congress to discourage import of such substances into our country. Faith based rehabilitation programs should be emphasized. We oppose legalization of illicit drugs. We support an effective abstinence-based educational program for children. We oppose any “needle exchange” program. We urge vigorous enforcement of our DUI laws."

Anyway, even if they didn't mean to include the words "critical thinking skills", they still don't want people to have the ability to reevaluate fixed-beliefs. Which require critical thinking skills. Damn, they accidentally said what they meant.

I agree with virtually everyone's opinion here except for @videosiftbannedme and @syncron and all I have to say to them is you have no idea what's going to happen to this kid in prison. Yes I said kid even though your legally an adult in Texas at 17, this kid is going to go through hell in prison. The first thing that happens to any male prisoner under 40 in prison is they get checked at the door. Getting "checked" in prison usually consists of at least one convict and as many as 4 or 5 convicts simply walking up to the guy and beating the living shit out of him. It works like Fight Club if this is your first time to prison you HAVE to fight. If there is more than one guy doing the checking they "backdoor" you which means they fight you one at a time with no breaks between fights as soon as the first guy has his fill the next one steps up and they can all go as many rounds as they feel like. If you don't fight them they will turn you into a bitch, take your food your bunk your commissary money, your fucking toothbrush, everything and you basically become a slave at that point. Even if you do fight there is no way to win they make sure the fights are very one sided. And all this is simply his first day in prison. After that depending on how his check goes things will get worse or they will become living hell literally. Some prisons are know as gladiator camps because anyone this guys age is going to fight every single day he's there period like it not. Here's the real kicker too the fights are usually started by people with very long sentences who don't give a flyin fuck what happens to them if they get caught. But if this kid gets caught fighting they will add time to his sentence by adding assault charges in their military style kangaroo court. So he's pretty well fucked from the start.

So this kid who's most heinous crime was a little graffiti will spend 8 years fighting guys twice his size every single day. Then they will release him back into society and call him reformed. Tell me what do you think you would be like after something like that? Would you ever be able to call yourself normal again? Would you be able to sleep at night without jumping up at every single noise you hear?

Some people simply don't get it. Prison is only good for one thing putting people away for life. They DO NOT rehabilitate ANYONE. They only make things worse they should never be used for petty crimes. Putting people in prison only breeds hatred inside those people. It breeds fear as well, fear of going back. That's why people who are on parole when faced with the possibility of going back to prison usually commit suicide. Prisons are for murders, Prisons are for rapists, Prisons are for child molesters, Prisons are for sociopaths.

Prisons are not for graffiti.

@braschlosan Thank you for sharing despite the emotional difficulty. The US system is indeed completely F'd up, I agree. I am speaking from the prospect of someone living in Switzerland, where prison life is quite comfortable and you have to do something really, really bad (e.g. rape will get you a few months, letting someone rape your girlfriend and then trying to get him to pay you for it will get you no punishment at all) to ever set foot there (most criminals get a fine that hardly any of them ever pay). I am all for rehabilitation, believe me, and it goes without saying that prisoners should be treated humanely. What I am saying is it should not only be reeducation, it should also be punishment. Just as one deprives one's kid from TV, games and or going out for a while as punishment for bad behaviour, while still encouraging them to be better.
Here in Switz you are encouraged to do apprenticeships in jail that are the equivalent of those everyone else does for a wide variety of professions; you can even work a job outside of prison if you are not considered dangerous (for the record, a man who stabbed another man + got a 14yo girl drunk to rape her was allowed this in his meagre 1 year sentence; just to show how lenient things are here).

I guess the misunderstanding is that my opinion is based on seeing Norway as far more similar to Switzerland than to the States. I have raged elsewhere on the Sift about how terrible the US prison system is, i.e. basically a dehumanizing slave market, but that is not what I am criticising here. I am simply saying that those who commit crimes (taking drugs or growing pot is not a crime imo btw, and here you hardly even get fined for it) should pay there dues to society while learning to be a productive/participating member thereof, instead of having society put them up in a luxury hotel at the expense of people who, despite their needs (yes, poor people exist in Europe too) refuse to take the easy way out, or give in to their baser impulses.

There is a political aspect to it too: when the taxpaying public continually reads about criminals getting off with little or no punishment, or being put in comfortable jails a few weeks before being let off to continue their thieving/raping/racketeering/etc, they tend to be more attracted to the conservative extremists. It particularly does not help that Travel People, Maghrebins, Africans and Eastern Europeans are over-represented in these areas, which fuels the xenophobic agenda of right-wing parties.

Okay, enough ranting from me. I am sorry if I upset you @braschlosan, I think it is mostly because of the misunderstanding concerning our different points of reference.

>> ^hpqp:

Wow. I hesitated answering you, because someone who calls imprisonment "kidnapping" might not have all their marbles, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
1) I don't know about Norway, but I live in a similarly rich and privileged country (Switzerland) and I can assure you that we have poor people who cannot afford housing with private toilets per person, flat screens with cable TV, or even a bedroom all to one's self.
2) Yes, of course criminals owe a debt to society. Legal procedures cost money. Police enforcement (to find/arrest them) costs money. The services that the victims of crimes are provided with by the state cost money. And then there is the direct debt depending on the crime (e.g. theft as you concede) as well as the moral debt (e.g. in case of physical/sexual abuse or murder) which usually translates into compensation money. Not to mention the price it costs to lodge and guard the criminals in prison.
3) Says you and what proof? Are you suggesting there are no homeless people in Norway? No families living in large numbers in small apartments, several per room/toilet? You're talking out of your ass.
4) This is where you get really crazy. Are you saying that there is no punishable crime? That it is not taking advantage of society to use violence/coercion/trickery/infraction to attain wealth (or sexual satisfaction), for example, instead of taking the legal routes?
Moreover, where did you get the idea that rehabilitation is out of the question? One does not need luxury to learn to be an honest member of society. And the idea is not to make people bored/crazy through isolation, quite the contrary. If you had read my comment carefully you'd have noticed that I advocate hard work for prisoners (which is a part of rehabilitation along with education programs etc. which I support), and basic living conditions which also means sharing one's cell; neither of these allow for boredom or isolation.
And if you're going to say it is not fair to make them work, then you hold truly deluded (and hypocritical) beliefs on society.
>> ^swedishfriend:
1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.
2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.
3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.
4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?
I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:
I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.




You're an idiot and a previous poster had the right idea by saying his opinion is worthless cause he's ignorant. You rise to the level of idiot because you seem to think your opinion about this subject matters. Might as well ask you how the fuck NASA should spend it's money.

Wow. I hesitated answering you, because someone who calls imprisonment "kidnapping" might not have all their marbles, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
1) I don't know about Norway, but I live in a similarly rich and privileged country (Switzerland) and I can assure you that we have poor people who cannot afford housing with private toilets per person, flat screens with cable TV, or even a bedroom all to one's self.
2) Yes, of course criminals owe a debt to society. Legal procedures cost money. Police enforcement (to find/arrest them) costs money. The services that the victims of crimes are provided with by the state cost money. And then there is the direct debt depending on the crime (e.g. theft as you concede) as well as the moral debt (e.g. in case of physical/sexual abuse or murder) which usually translates into compensation money. Not to mention the price it costs to lodge and guard the criminals in prison.
3) Says you and what proof? Are you suggesting there are no homeless people in Norway? No families living in large numbers in small apartments, several per room/toilet? You're talking out of your ass.
4) This is where you get really crazy. Are you saying that there is no punishable crime? That it is not taking advantage of society to use violence/coercion/trickery/infraction to attain wealth (or sexual satisfaction), for example, instead of taking the legal routes?

Moreover, where did you get the idea that rehabilitation is out of the question? One does not need luxury to learn to be an honest member of society. And the idea is not to make people bored/crazy through isolation, quite the contrary. If you had read my comment carefully you'd have noticed that I advocate hard work for prisoners (which is a part of rehabilitation along with education programs etc. which I support), and basic living conditions which also means sharing one's cell; neither of these allow for boredom or isolation.

And if you're going to say it is not fair to make them work, then you hold truly deluded (and hypocritical) beliefs on society.

>> ^swedishfriend:

1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.
2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.
3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.
4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?
I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:
I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.

1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.

2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.

3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.

4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?

I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:

I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.

Don't discount your own insight so easily. What's your gut feeling? Do you think rehabilitation will work better if someone's relatively comfortable or if they're suffering more? At what level does a prisoner's discomfort become inhumane? Unproductive? What about the victims' and society's desire for retribution? Do you think a nice prison will be less of a deterrent to crime than a nasty one? What about when prisoners get out. Do you think it will affect their employability if they did their time in a nice place like this?

There's arguments and opinions to be had all over the place.

Or you could stare with what about the American system you don't think works, and if this would be a step in the right or the wrong direction.>> ^TheFreak:

I think my opinion on Norway's prison doesn't matter. I don't know a damn thing about rehabilitation or what works in their society.
Besides, I live in the USA and you'd be bullshiting yourself if you believed our system works.

I think my opinion on Norway's prison doesn't matter. I don't know a damn thing about rehabilitation or what works in their society.

Besides, I live in the USA and you'd be bullshiting yourself if you believed our system works.

How then should I punish him in either case?


Taking this a step further, why punish anyone for anything?

I mean, in a practical sense for us non-omnipotent types there's lots of valid, utility reasons to punish: deterrence, recompense (through fines or labor), rehabilitation/education, and mechanically preventing further crimes. Probably a few others.

The only one of these that could possibly be countenanced by an omnipotent being would be education.. but why should violence or pain be required for this - can't God accomplish this some other way (ie. isn't he omnipotent... or at least more powerful than the human methods for rehabilitation that function pretty well without eternal burning)? And don't any lessons you learn during the infinite burning seem a bit wasted if you're just going burn in Hell forever anyways?

"Justice" can be a utilitarian virtue, just like "not wasting money", or "properly sterilizing dental equipment". But I don't see how it's an eternal one that God needs to worry about. I don't see what need or virtue is served by God punishing anyone, especially when it flies in the face of "love", "mercy", "fairness", and other virtues or properties that seem a lot more valuable.