I say they probably never had a decent place to live.

Who knows wtf would work, try anything once.

Several things to watch as this facility rolls along...what's the cost of operation, compared to a traditional prison, and does the recidivism rate differ from a traditional prison? Once we have those two bits of information, the decision as to whether the approach is worth following is something that could be rationally considered.

Until then, as Bone says, "...try anything once."

a developed nation's reaction to a criminal is to incarcerate him/her. To deny the criminal of his freedom of movement, and be confined to a particular space for a certain amount of time until it seems he or she has had the time to ponder, reflect, consider, and hopefuly regret the actions that led him to that point.

Removing one's personal freedom does not need to equate with removing his humanity and/or sanity. In fact, it should be quite the opposite, and then give them a chance, after having served their time, to be re-introduced to society in a positive, productive manner.

Treating people like animals just makes them feel like animals. Why should an animal give a flying fuck about society and personal responsability?

Does it feel conflicting to give a criminal a confortable stay in prison? Yes it does, but it's also the moral thing to do.

Well, I'm off to Norway to murder someone!

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.

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 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.

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.

>> ^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.

@Yogi I'm a contributing member of a democratic society, of course my opinion matters.

Ive been in jail (not the Police station, county jail which was one step below prison). It is hard for me to write about it. I am still so damaged by it that I have a hard time watching shows depicting real or imitation incarceration.

Trust me from the bottom of my heart that the system in the USA makes you worse for society. You become a hardened evil monster who has had to use all of your energy every minute of the day just to survive. You pick up skills that have no application in normal society.

No offense HPQP but you don't know what the hell you speak of. Have you ever trained a dog? Do you understand that punishment (negative reinforcement) creates dogs with problems? Yes we are human but he same applies. If you don't like that analogy then its like raising a child. You can't just use punishment without encouragement to raise a good child.
Wouldn't you want the criminals to see what type of life they can lead when they follow the rules? Let me tell you that even if you are PERFECT at following the rules in the US Jail system you get fucked up. Someone is out to get you. Its a breeding tank for sociopaths.

My thoughts are so scattered from being upset that its hard to write this without getting myself banned or looked upon like a crazy person.

If any of you have questions I can answer feel free.

@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.