Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prison book ban ruled unlawful by High Court

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 79 posts

Re: Prison book ban ruled unlawful by High Court

#61

Post by tomjen3 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #20
SteveGerencser wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As they should. If you are going to give away a college education it should probably start with the people not in prison and even earlier before they begin to commit crimes. I understand the desire to rehabilitate people, but when those in prison have more services and resources handed to them than the general population gets then there is a serious problem. If we started earlier in the education process and young st…

The national average cost to keep someone a prisoner is $31k/year. http://www.reentryeducationnetwork.org/advocacy-platform.htm... > New York State college in prison programs have also proven effective, with only 7.7% of incarcerated people who attended college classes re-incarcerated compared to the 29.9% recidivism rate of those who did not attend any college classes. A 75% reduction in recidivism will pay for comm…

You assume that the group that did attend community college is the same as the group that did not. This seems, to me, questionable. After all at least those who attempt to get a college education think it is worth the work, which is likely to cause them to reoffend, no?

Ignoring that, how about the effect that if you get caught for your crime you get a free college education? Wouldn't that remove some of the downside of a life of crime.

Re: Prison book ban ruled unlawful by High Court

#62

Post by tomjen3 »

digikata wrote: post #50
crusso wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate people You imply that rehabilitation is the only reason for prison and that there are proven methods of rehabilitation. Rehabilitating people is hard and we don't know of any great ways to do that. Removing criminals from society is easy and straightforward.

And really really expensive. If the point is a safe society without high costs of maintenance it seems foolish to overlook rehabilitation.

We could make it much cheaper, if we wanted to. Cages hold a man as well as cells made of bricks, prisoners can work whenever they are not sleeping and things like recreational facilities are just going be used for and by gangs.

We could make prisons much cheaper than they currently are just by choosing either rehabilitation or warehousing. Warehousing would be even cheaper - or maybe split the prisoners up by worth (essentially asking is this person a good person who did something bad, or a bad person) and then have two different criminal systems.

Re: Prison book ban ruled unlawful by High Court

#63

Post by king_jester »

crusso wrote: post #31
mabbo wrote: post #11

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: if the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate people, then we're going about it in a very strange way. Lock people away in a cell for a decade, deny them a lot of basic human rights (like books) then when they're good and messed up in the head from it, let them lose on the public. If they re-offend, well, that's clearly a sign that they are just a bad person . Best lock the…

if the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate people You imply that rehabilitation is the only reason for prison and that there are proven methods of rehabilitation. Rehabilitating people is hard and we don't know of any great ways to do that. Removing criminals from society is easy and straightforward.

> Removing criminals from society is easy and straightforward.

This is one of the biggest misconceptions about prison. Prisons and incarceration do not remove people from society, those people are still a part of society even if their interaction and freedoms are restricted. Not too mention who and what defines criminality is a horribly messed up system.

Re: Prison book ban ruled unlawful by High Court

#64

Post by ceejayoz »

MichaelGG wrote: post #56
atmosx wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me is strange for anyone to choose a life where he is absolutely not free, just to get a college degree. Degree or not, having jail time in your resume will have a (extremely?) negative impact.

How pervasive is that attitude? I've worked with plenty of people with records. So long it's not something real violent or something lame/morally questionable (robbing an old woman because you're her financial advisor) the only real question I think of is "why were you caught" and if that is strong evidence of anything else. Like, it could indicate a poor understanding of information theory, or badly calibrated risk…

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/238488.pdf

> The majority of employers indicate that they would “probably” or “definitely” not be willing to hire an applicant with a criminal record.

Re: Prison book ban ruled unlawful by High Court

#65

Post by ceejayoz »

tomjen3 wrote: post #61
ceejayoz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The national average cost to keep someone a prisoner is $31k/year. http://www.reentryeducationnetwork.org/advocacy-platform.htm... > New York State college in prison programs have also proven effective, with only 7.7% of incarcerated people who attended college classes re-incarcerated compared to the 29.9% recidivism rate of those who did not attend any college classes. A 75% reduction in recidivism will pay for comm…

You assume that the group that did attend community college is the same as the group that did not. This seems, to me, questionable. After all at least those who attempt to get a college education think it is worth the work, which is likely to cause them to reoffend, no? Ignoring that, how about the effect that if you get caught for your crime you get a free college education? Wouldn't that remove some of the downside…

> Wouldn't that remove some of the downside of a life of crime.

That's a problem if prison it to be primarily punitive. I'd prefer it were rehabilitative, and thus focused on "what's the best way to turn this person into a productive, positive member of society once released?" I'd also prefer a basic, community college-level education be available to all, not just the incarcerated.

Re: Prison book ban ruled unlawful by High Court

#66

Post by KaiserPro »

cmdkeen wrote: post #38
KaiserPro wrote: post #15

And ofcourse Mr Grayling has done his best to destroy Judicial reviews that highlight this kind of problem. Basically if you want to challenge a law, a judicial review is the only way you can go about it (going through the political process, writing to an MP and the like leaves you open to the whim of the press and "public opinion") http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/18682/... If this law goes thro…

At what point has the judicial review become merely the means for judges to disagree with government policy? This wasn't a law change, this was a change to an existing policy about what prisoners could receive in parcels. Judicial review seems to have become an all too regular occurrence used by people who don't like what a particular government is doing.

But the point of british law is that no one is above it. A precedence set by the magna carta. (which has now been superseded apart from two clauses.)

This means that if the government changes policy, and that policy change is incompatible with the law, it must be changed. This is the mecanism that would stop the government from passing a statutory instrument(a law that requires no vote in parliament) to allow the Treasury to take assets without due process (something that was protected by the magna carta, but was recently repealed)

How ever for a law to be challenged, a judicial review must be triggered.

Re: Prison book ban ruled unlawful by High Court

#67

Post by celticninja »

Xeoncross wrote: post #43
Elrac wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US penal system is shockingly big on vengeance over resocialization. America's Christian fundamentalists like it that way because they claim as their own the worst personality flaws of their ancient Jewish war god. And American politicians know they can easily collect a few more votes by acting "tougher on crime."

As an American Christian I believe nothing of the sort. What is your source for this ad hominem claim? The bible actually doesn't support the idea of prisons at all. If someone murders, then they need to be put to death. Otherwise, theft, drugs, and all other crimes are best handled outside of a prison system that does very little to help a person recover from their problems. Christ advocated restoring a person. Secu…

so you are christian but approve of the death penalty?

Re: Prison book ban ruled unlawful by High Court

#68

Post by cmdkeen »

KaiserPro wrote: post #66
cmdkeen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point has the judicial review become merely the means for judges to disagree with government policy? This wasn't a law change, this was a change to an existing policy about what prisoners could receive in parcels. Judicial review seems to have become an all too regular occurrence used by people who don't like what a particular government is doing.

But the point of british law is that no one is above it. A precedence set by the magna carta. (which has now been superseded apart from two clauses.) This means that if the government changes policy, and that policy change is incompatible with the law, it must be changed. This is the mecanism that would stop the government from passing a statutory instrument(a law that requires no vote in parliament) to allow the Tre…

Except many judicial reviews aren't about the legality of the decision, merely the way the decision has been made.

"Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached. It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were 'right', as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the 'correct' decision."

[http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/19/judicia...]

Re: Prison book ban ruled unlawful by High Court

#69

Post by pixl97 »

cmdkeen wrote: post #38
KaiserPro wrote: post #15

And ofcourse Mr Grayling has done his best to destroy Judicial reviews that highlight this kind of problem. Basically if you want to challenge a law, a judicial review is the only way you can go about it (going through the political process, writing to an MP and the like leaves you open to the whim of the press and "public opinion") http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/18682/... If this law goes thro…

At what point has the judicial review become merely the means for judges to disagree with government policy? This wasn't a law change, this was a change to an existing policy about what prisoners could receive in parcels. Judicial review seems to have become an all too regular occurrence used by people who don't like what a particular government is doing.

>Judicial review seems to have become an all too regular occurrence used by people who don't like what a particular government is doing.

Could it be because what the particular government is doing is ethically wrong. It's easy to look at the past and say 'why didn't people change these things, it's obvious they were wrong.', but then we look at judicial review and say, 'well, they are just giving the government trouble'. Don't you think that's exactly what the people that defended slavery would have said? Or the people that didn't want women to have voting rights? Or any number of anything we take as rights under the law?

Re: Prison book ban ruled unlawful by High Court

#70

Post by dragonwriter »

cmdkeen wrote: post #68
KaiserPro wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the point of british law is that no one is above it. A precedence set by the magna carta. (which has now been superseded apart from two clauses.) This means that if the government changes policy, and that policy change is incompatible with the law, it must be changed. This is the mecanism that would stop the government from passing a statutory instrument(a law that requires no vote in parliament) to allow the Tre…

Except many judicial reviews aren't about the legality of the decision, merely the way the decision has been made. "Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached. It is not reall…

> Except many judicial reviews aren't about the legality of the decision, merely the way the decision has been made

But isn't that an essential feature of the constitutional structure of the UK: given that the UK doesn't have a separation of powers system in which various entities within government have limited powers, any decision by government that is within the sovereign power of the government is substantively legally, the only question of its legality is whether or not it is a valid decision of the government, made by the means legally prescribed by the government for the kind of decision it is -- but this can look at like review of the legality of the substance of the decision, because the legally prescribed mechanism for a decision may vary based on the substance of the decision.

(In a sense, this is true of any sovereign government, even, e.g., the US separation of powers system, wherein the "way the decision has been made", in order to be legal, for certain decisions involves a Constitutional Amendment.)

Post reply on HN