Get rid of prisons!

Prisons are simply too expensive; in most countries there’s a chronic shortage of prison places because of other demands on the public budget. This, in turn, leads to the release of prisoners who are overwhelmingly likely to reoffend, or who pose unquantifiable danger.

It is said that when a guy goes to a hardware store for a drill what he really wants is a hole. And then you have to consider whether it is actually a hole he needs, or whether his ultimate requirement might be sought in other ways. The same logic needs to be applied to imprisonment. What we really want is to “contain” the prisoner. That is, we wish to restrict him, very probably in terms of a confined location. There are several ways of bringing this about, and all need to be considered.

The least imaginative is to put the prisoner in a pit or dungeon, or to erect walls around him. Another possibility is to limit his mobility with fetters. This may be useful in some circumstances, but may merely slow him down. A further possibility is to tether the prisoner, restricting his location to the radius of the tether. Other possibilities should be investigated by abandonment of obvious or conventional solutions, and fresh thinking from first principles.

The first stage of human confinement of domestic animals seems to have been to take advantage of natural barriers, supplemented by the digging of pits or ditches. In essence, it is this kind of “perimeter confinement” that we apply to captives in prisons. Only much later, when materials technology advanced, was it possible to tether animals. However, we do not seem to have advanced to the equivalent stage of “radial confinement” with human captives. Surely it is time to do so!

Tethers for humans need to be tough. The captive must not be able to break, cut, or otherwise sever the tether. With modern materials (titanium alloy links, carbon fibre, etc) this really should not be too much of a problem. Neither must the “stake”, the fixed point to which the tether is secured, be capable of displacement. These are matters for engineers and ergonomists. The Research Councils should be making grants available to university departments to establish general principles and seek best solutions.

The issue of criminal captivity needs to be removed from politics and sociology and exposed to the imaginations of scientists and technologists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm, you seem to be forgetting the basics for the prisoner that you're "tethering" ....like food, housing, utilities, entertainment, ...costs. Who takes care of the houses? Who mows the yards? Who pays for the house and property taxes? Who cooks the meals? Who cleans the house?

With all of the gazillion prisoners all in different locations, the cost of providing those services would be even greater than in the prisons. Perhaps you should rethink your idealistic attitude for prisoners, huh? Once you begin to think about the realities, instead of just the ideals, you'll see that it's far, far easier and safer to put them into prisons.

I also wonder how many people would want a "tethered" prisoner in their neighborhood? ...ever think of that? Some people aren't as idealistic as you are, huh?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i agree that prisons are a bad idea in general, i have been to prison myself, and know personaly that it does no good for the people that are sent there. if you gather hundreds of criminals and put them into a confined space where they interact with each other, its a bad influence and they are likely to re-offend and come out worse than when they went in.


but i dont think your idea will work either, just like baron put forward all of the problems and its true. im not saying i can solve any problems though, but what about something like an eye for an eye scheme? if you steal £1000, you get the £1000 taken and plus you have to pay back an additional £1000. if you shoot somebody then you get shot back. if you kill somebody then you get put to death. if you rape somebody then you get an object shoved up your ass.



peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay. Put all the prisoners in solitary confinement ...where they can't interact with anyone! Keep 'em in their cells, one person to a cell, give 'em a few books to read.

I also don't think your idea of "eye-for-an-eye" would work either. For one thing, the chances of getting caught aren't good even now, but if the burglar could steal from 1,000 homes and only get caught once, he'd only have to pay for that one crime and the penalty ain't very steep as you've outlined. In other words, crime, especially robbery and burglary would now begin to be a good "job" with lots of potential to make lots of money.

Baron Max

 

No. Actually, I was forgetting none of those things -- I simply did not want to write at excess length. Undoubtedly, an economist is also required for a proper study.

I suspect the cost of building new prisons is what mostly restricts the number of places, but in the long term the BIG cost is the 24/7 cost of guards/warders. Eliminate that, and you are likely to end up with a big saving.

Take for example a man who has shown paedophile tendencies. A man, perhaps, with a successful career and his own home, but who poses an unquantifiable risk. Really, he cannot help himself. I do not hate paedophiles any more than I hate homosexuals; simply their deviance takes a different and more dangerous form. I have no desire to punish, but I wish to protect. How much better to confine him to his own home and grounds with (say) a twenty-yard tether, than to imprison him -- or indeed to let him roam free on the guesswork of a psychiatrist.

 

But you were the one to suggest it, therefore, I had to assume that you'd given it some thought ......I guess not! Do you usually propose such actions without giving them any or much thought?

How many people do you know who'd willing allow, or want, a pedophile to live in their neighborhood?

But some people do! And also some, if not most, people wouldn't want them living in their neighborhood. Yet you seem perfectly willing to force it upon them. That ain't very nice of you, is it?

Also, is this "tether" that you propose 100% gauranteed not to fail?

Baron Max

 

so then, did the English have it right when they sent their convicts to Australia? I think so.

 

Rather few -- but at present paedophiles are never be locked up for as long as people would like. Far better tether them that let them roam free.

Present technology makes possible tethers that would resist normal interference, but one cannot rule out hi-tech attacks on tethers. I think this matter needs expert investigation, which I am pretty sure it has never received. At least they would be hugely more effective than electronic tagging!

I have no doubt at all, Orleander, that the very best way of dealing with most criminals is to exile/deport them. Trouble is, the world is too full up. I think Britain ought to consider South Georgia as a possible destination.

 

I was thinking Antarctica.

 

Are you proposing to tether them in thier own home?

 

Where appropriate -- simply on grounds of cost. Of course, such an easy solution might not be possible for a range of reasons. One might want to be more punitive. There might not be a home. Even if it was necessary to build something, the specification would be much cheaper to implement than a prison. At minimum: tents!

 

River Ape, I think you should give your idea a lot more thought instead of just throwing out "suggestions".

You're beginning to remind me of politicians ...throwing out ideas wily-nily without any basis in fact or reality. Of course, by doing so, you're joining a large group of sciforum posters! Are you sure that's what you want?

Baron Max

 

Well of course there's no bloody "basis in fact or reality" --- we don't tether captives at present! What's eating you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you have a problem with any idea capable of being described as a "suggestion" you should give up on sciforums. Did you think I should have started off with a ten thousand word essay to prove I had given the idea sufficient consideration? Now, if you had a "killer" objection to tethering, it would be worth hearing from you. Ditto if you thought there were issues I might easily have overlooked, e.g. fire hazard. Ditto if you thought there were issues regarding the how the public would feel towards tethering captives. Best of all if you thought there were still other (and better) unconsidered possibilities for dealing with prisoners.

 

*************
M*W: My thoughts, exactly. Why not ship them to the moon where they can run free and molest each other. And give them x amount of oxygen supply. Should they find a way to build a space ship and return to Earth, let the scientists have at them. We're not really utilizing the efforts of the space program as best we could.

 

I'd rather be in prison than in this hell :S

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You do all realise, I hope, that when I suggested South Georgia I was actually referring to the island in Antarctic regions, and not to Savannah!

 

The problems with tethering vs. imprisonment are that any material can be cut. We needn't imagine that the convict won't have friends who could bring him a diamond saw, or acetylene torch, or any number of other things.

Also, a guard can safely supervise a man in a cell. With a tether, he has to stay a certain distance away, and be aware of that distance at all times.

If you're talking about tethering people to their homes, then you'd need an awful lot of guards. Gathering your convicts into one place allows for fewer people to guard them.

 

Well, probably not "any number of things"! With the right materials, it is going to take the likes of an acetylene blowtorch -- which relatively few of us can immediately put their hands on. However, the point you are making is clearly a valid one.

First, I would say that the prospect of rescue by friends is highly variable between one criminal and the next. For those engaged in organised crime, the chances of attempted rescue are very many times higher. However, many people from whom the public need long-term defence -- paedophiles and other types of sex offender, people with an unquantifiable risk of violent behaviour, people committing chronic petty crime to feed a drug habit, arsonists, criminally inclined oddballs and loners -- are unlikely to be rich in the number of friends willing to risk their own freedom on their behalf.

If I actually look at a selection of people being sent down at the local county court and consider the chances of someone "springing" them, I think I would not rate those chances very high in most cases.
1. Dangerous driving resulting in a death.
2. Official defrauding the local council of £75,000.
3. Brutal attack by two youths on elderly man in the course of street robbery.
4. Young man driving without license or insurance (sixth conviction for same offence); also driving recklessly (second offence).
5. Young man "supplying an illegal substance" (second offence).

So: the first major issue in deciding who might most suitably be considered for tethering would be the assessment of the prospects of rescue.

A sentence of what would be in effect "house arrest" might often be considered insufficiently punishment. However, where the problem was that of the mentally unstable person or the paedophile presenting an unquantifiable danger, I think it would be appropriate. Such people present a major problem because their long-term incarceration puts an especial burden on the prison system, which in turn creates an incentive for their hazardous release.

In most cases, hostels may be more appropriate. Tethering might be introduced to existing prisons, reducing the need for guards. Economy depends most of all on reducing the number of warders/guards. At present, their wage bill dwarfs all other expenses: the capital costs of prison building, provision of food and clothing, light and sanitation, etc.

The second major issue is how tethering might be "enhanced" as a form of security -- without getting so expensive that its advantage was lost. There are a range of possibilities to be considered here.
1. Where tetherees were held in groups, all might be held responsible if the alarm was not raised for a rescue attempt on any one of them.
2. External monitoring and alarm systems might identify all visitors to tetherees, and immediately detect any escape.
3. The tether itself might be alarmed against interference.
4. Tetherees might have tracking devices attached.

Basically, Kojax, my position is this. I have spent many hours of my life typing up applications for research grants to Britain's various Reseach Councils (funding bodies). I think that tethering has potential to solve Britain's present problem of an acute shortage of prison places, and in the long term offers the prospect of major savings. I would like to see a couple of £million directed towards the evaluation of tethering, including a technological study of how its admitted difficulties might be overcome. My contention is that this would be money well spent.

 

i dont think prisons are a bad idea, in fact i think they should build more, where should we put the people who murder, rape? surely they cant be free to walk the streets

 

Its not a case of they should but they must. The prisons are full and so prisoners are being let out long before the end of their sentences.

But thats the Labour Govt for you. Of course the leftists would rather they be treated kindly and entertained in prison.

Well there had to be at least ONE sensible post on this thread and thats it..I'm afraid these posts are twaddle. Tethering lol..thats a new idea..and original if nothing else!!

..AND AMUSING!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!