NationStates Jolt Archive

BBC Linkey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6444961.stm)


Women's prisons should be shut down and replaced with small secure units, according to a report commissioned for the Home Office.
The plan is being recommended by Labour peer Baroness Corston as part of a 10-year reform programme.

She says women should be held in units near their families and not in large jails like the one in Holloway, London.

Her review was prompted by the deaths of six women at Styal prison, Cheshire, between August 2002 and August 2003.

If adopted by the home secretary, Baroness Corston's approach would see Holloway and about 14 other all-female prisons in England and Wales shut down or converted into jails for men.

'Systemic failings'

Lady Corston recommends a significant cut in the overall number of women who are sent to jail, with greater use of community punishments instead.

There are currently 4,300 women in jail in England and Wales.

Frances Crook, director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said "prison simply doesn't work" for women.

"From lack of staff training and inadequate healthcare, to questionable policies such as segregating women at risk and the over-use of force, the systemic failings of imprisonment that the Corston Review highlights must be addressed by the government.

"If the Government fails to take radical action it will be held accountable for the deaths and injuries of women in prisons for years to come."

Last year, three women committed suicide in prisons, following four in 2005 and 13 in 2004.

So far in 2007 there have been two apparently self-inflicted deaths.

Baroness Corston said government departments had to work together to prevent women's needs being overlooked.

"The tragic deaths of two female prisoners in January this year highlight that although there have been significant improvements since the series of six deaths at Styal, a radical new approach is needed in regard to the management of women offenders and more widely, women at risk of offending."

The report makes 43 recommendations, including improved jail sanitation and a ban on strip-searching of women inmates.

There should be a specific "champion" within government to oversee policy on women offenders and a network of community centres to which police and other agencies can refer women who commit crime or are likely to in the future, it says.

Home Office Minister Baroness Scotland said she welcomed the review and promised the government would look carefully at the issues it raised.

"Vulnerable women who are not a danger to society should not be going to prison," she said.

"Where women have to be imprisoned, we are committed to ensuring they are held in conditions that are clean, decent and fit for purpose."

The report was also described as "a profound shift" by a coalition of 16 criminal justice charities.


I personally think this is really dumb - I never knew that someones body parts were mitigating in how they should be sentenced these days. They propose even ending strip searches - presumeably relying on an 'honor' system?

For context for those outside of the UK - it is pretty hard to get sent to prison here, with many criminals racking up numerous convictions for rather serious crimes before a custodial sentence is used. While I ackonolege that some of these women are in there for relatively low end crime I suspect that many of them are in for more serious crimes. I'll see if I can dig up some figures.

I'm partly hoping that someone here could offer a good reason why someone shoudl recieve a lower sentence for the same crime because of their gender.

If you vote that a woman should not go to prison for the same crime as a man can you please state why - I honestly am interested to hear peoples views.

EDIT/UPDATE:

I have found some statitics!! Woot!

Linky (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/omcsq405tab2.xls)

About 15% of female prisoners are in there for violent crime, compared to 23% of male prisoners.

Crimes I feel should qualify a person for prison on this list are:
Violent, Sexual, Robbery and Burgulary - the last as it has an underestimated effect on victims.

These crimes account for about 28% of the female prison population and 48% of the male prison population.

Boo! Unequal treatment! Boo!

Yeah, gender favoritism is... etc

No kidding.

This is looking like it could end up being the most one-sided poll in NS history. I voted WITH the trend, btw. ;)

Primarily on the grounds of equal punishment for equal crime.

EDIT: freaking timewarps...

Yeah, gender favoritism is just shit. So women are dying in prison. Holy crap, so are men - big whoop. Prison's hard shit, that's why people don't want to go there, thereby giving incentive to not commit the crime - or at the least, not get caught.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

That doesn't mean that prison conditions can't be improved, though. Yes, lock them up, but there's no excuse for a "lack of staff training and inadequate healthcare", as the article puts it.

They shouldn't ban strip searches, but I think they should make it so it's a female-friendly system, where the guards are women. You can make minor changes that make the system work without breaking it.

It seems to me that for both genders there should be different levels of imprisonment based on the nature of the crime. Why put harden criminals in with petty and white collar criminals? I can see putting people charges with varying degrees of murder, except manslaughter (which is often involuntary) in with those charged with sexual crimes.

So, only those who are a true threat to society would go to maximum security prisons and those charges with lesser crimes would go to lower security prisons/half-way homes. After all, someone who is only in for a small time crime shouldn't be shoved in a cell and forgotten about.

There are some crimes which should be treated differently based on gender because of instances where there are psychological reasons involved.

BBC Linkey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6444961.stm)



I personally think this is really dumb - I never knew that someones body parts were mitigating in how they should be sentenced these days. They propose even ending strip searches - presumeably relying on an 'honor' system?

For context for those outside of the UK - it is pretty hard to get sent to prison here, with many criminals racking up numerous convictions for rather serious crimes before a custodial sentence is used. While I ackonolege that some of these women are in there for relatively low end crime I suspect that many of them are in for more serious crimes. I'll see if I can dig up some figures.

I'm partly hoping that someone here could offer a good reason why someone shoudl recieve a lower sentence for the same crime because of their gender.

If you vote that a woman should not go to prison for the same crime as a man can you please state why - I honestly am interested to hear peoples views.


Of course women should go to jail too ...da: rolleyes:

I guess it all depends on what you think the job of a prision is.

If your view is that prisons should reform then yes, we need to look at why this is clearlty not workinmg for both male an female criminals, and perhaps try differant things.

If your view is that prisons should punish then no, let them endour hardship as punishment

My view, well I used to belive in reform, but now I take a harder line. Make prison hard, very hard, and increae the amount of time that people serve, take all drug users out and anybody there that has not commited a hard crime, and make them pay fines instead.

They shouldn't ban strip searches, but I think they should make it so it's a female-friendly system, where the guards are women. You can make minor changes that make the system work without breaking it.
I am 99.99999% sure a male guard is not permitted to do a strip search on a female prisoner.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of guards in female prisons are female, with strict controls on how male guards may interact with the prisoners to try to prevent obvious abuses.

if ur going to do the crime, then do the time.

depending on the crime depends on the punishment. if you commit murder, then u dont deserve to see daylight. lock u up in the hole for the rest of ur life. no freedom, no rights, u will be the living dead.

less violent crimes, less violent actions, but none the less, u broke the law, u should be punished, not treated with respect

if ur going to do the crime, then do the time.

depending on the crime depends on the punishment. if you commit murder, then u dont deserve to see daylight. lock u up in the hole for the rest of ur life. no freedom, no rights, u will be the living dead.

less violent crimes, less violent actions, but none the less, u broke the law, u should be punished, not treated with respect

How very unconstitutional of you.

They shouldn't ban strip searches, but I think they should make it so it's a female-friendly system, where the guards are women. You can make minor changes that make the system work without breaking it.


I can't speak for other countries, but I am virtually positive that in I am pretty sure every single state, a male guard can never do a strip search on a female prisoner.

If the prison system does not work, it needs reform! For both sexes!

Of course they should, and frankly, why is this even an issue?

Oh wait, it's because the British criminal justice system is a joke, wherin judges are criticised for giving murderers excessive sentences.

The headline says "Scrap Woman's Prisons". Maybe this could be interpreted to mean that there should be no separate prisons for women and that men and women should go to the same prisons. How about that for an idea?

"Where women have to be imprisoned, we are committed to ensuring they are held in conditions that are clean, decent and fit for purpose."
Does this imply that they're not committed to ensuring men's prisons are clean, decent and fit for that purpose?

I personally think this is really dumb - I never knew that someones body parts were mitigating in how they should be sentenced these days.

its evidentally not based on that, but on psychological differences between men and women. if it is truly the case that women do not respond to prison in the traditional sense, or respond overly adversely (for their health), then i would say alternatives to standard prisons should be considered for women, much as the article says.
the idea is to send them to prison, not make them commit suicide. (though i would like to see comparitive suicide figures for male inmates in the UK for the same timeframe the article quotes)

however, if it were not for this, there would be no rational reason i could see for possibly not equating men and women in this respect.

how bad an offender does a woman have to be to get thrown in jail in the UK?

do you fill your prisons with drug offenders like we do?

im thinking that the "problem" is that only the very worst female offenders end up in prison and that they dont do well because they wont do well anywhere and really CANT be released into the world because they are a danger.

yes the prisons might need to be set up differently than male prisons and prisoners always do better if they are located near their families. that should be considered. but not keep dangerous people in prison because they are women? thats just stupid

if the vast majority of your female offenders are there on non violent crimes maybe you should rethink the whole thing.

its evidentally not based on that, but on psychological differences between men and women. if it is truly the case that women do not respond to prison in the traditional sense, or respond overly adversely (for their health), then i would say alternatives to standard prisons should be considered for women, much as the article says.
the idea is to send them to prison, not make them commit suicide. (though i would like to see comparitive suicide figures for male inmates in the UK for the same timeframe the article quotes)

however, if it were not for this, there would be no rational reason i could see for possibly not equating men and women in this respect.

Alternatives? Why? Because otherwise they'll commit suicide? That's holding themselves for ransom - last I checked, it wasn't appropriate ettiquette to deal with domestic terrorists who hold people ransom under threat.

"Don't send me to jail or I'll kill myself!" - that's an arguable case in court, now? Sure, the person can be tried for a psych evaluation, but by no means do I encourage being soft on idiots that simply can't handle the punishment.

how bad an offender does a woman have to be to get thrown in jail in the UK?

do you fill your prisons with drug offenders like we do?

im thinking that the "problem" is that only the very worst female offenders end up in prison and that they dont do well because they wont do well anywhere and really CANT be released into the world because they are a danger.

yes the prisons might need to be set up differently than male prisons and prisoners always do better if they are located near their families. that should be considered. but not keep dangerous people in prison because they are women? thats just stupid

if the vast majority of your female offenders are there on non violent crimes maybe you should rethink the whole thing.

I am not sure what portion are in for non-violent crime, however in the UK it is quite hard to even send a guy to prison even with multiple violent offenses, and already they are much more reluctant to send a woman.

I don't think very many people get sent to prison for personal drug use, although quite a few get sent because of their actions in getting cash to fund that personal drug use. I suspect most drug offenses that end up in prison are drug dealing, possibly repeat offenders.



gotta find some figures...

What, women like Rose West and Myra Hindley should not have gone to prison?

Bullshit. If a women commits a crime, then she should pay the same penalty as a man period.

I think the whole system needs a massive overhaul, both for men and women. If they decide to start treating female prisoners more humanely, I'm not going to bewail that on gender imbalance alone. Instead, I'm going to push for the same considerations to be given to men. That is in direct opposition to the most common position which is, "Oh no! Unfair unfair! Someone is being treated better, so we must insist that they be treated just as shittily in the name of equality".

How about...we treat everyone BETTER in the name of equality? That'd be a nice change.

I think the whole system needs a massive overhaul, both for men and women. If they decide to start treating female prisoners more humanely, I'm not going to bewail that on gender imbalance alone. Instead, I'm going to push for the same considerations to be given to men. That is in direct opposition to the most common position which is, "Oh no! Unfair unfair! Someone is being treated better, so we must insist that they be treated just as shittily in the name of equality".

How about...we treat everyone BETTER in the name of equality? That'd be a nice change.


Because I see no need to treat prisoners better. :p

The headline says "Scrap Woman's Prisons". Maybe this could be interpreted to mean that there should be no separate prisons for women and that men and women should go to the same prisons. How about that for an idea?


That just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Authorities have a hard enough time keeping sexual abuse down in single-sex prisons already.

That just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Authorities have a hard enough time keeping sexual abuse down in single-sex prisons already.

Psh. If they get pregnant they get special treatment. :3

Because I see no need to treat prisoners better. :p
Of course you don't.

But I think over time, simply warehousing criminals is more expensive, and less beneficial for society as a whole, than honestly attempting to rehabilitate them.

If you want criminals to come out of jail as human beings, they need to be TREATED like human beings.

Of course you don't.

But I think over time, simply warehousing criminals is more expensive, and less beneficial for society as a whole, than honestly attempting to rehabilitate them.

If you want criminals to come out of jail as human beings, they need to be TREATED like human beings.

Ah yes. Just like they treated their victims like human beings, with the compassion and empathy you infer above.....:rolleyes:

Prsion should be a perjorative experiance that fills criminals with the fear of God that they might ever return.

Ah yes. Just like they treated their victims like human beings, with the compassion and empathy you infer above.....:rolleyes:

Prsion should be a perjorative experiance that fills criminals with the fear of God that they might ever return.

I'm fairly certain it already is, and the return rate for criminals is crazy.

Of course you don't.

But I think over time, simply warehousing criminals is more expensive, and less beneficial for society as a whole, than honestly attempting to rehabilitate them.

If you want criminals to come out of jail as human beings, they need to be TREATED like human beings.


I disagree, keeping viloent criminals locked up and off the streets is massivly benifical to us.

Prison system must be changed for both sexes. But if I must choose between better conditions only for women, or better conditions for no one, I will choose first option. And I am a man.

No. Double. Standard.

Period.

If a crime isn't serious enough for a woman to be sent in jail, then it's not serious enough for a man to be sent in jail abotu it, either. If a crime is serious enough for a man to be jailed for comitting it, then it's also a crime that should bring a prison term for a woman who does it.

I'm all for women's prisons taking into accounts the difference between men and women as far security, facilities, and differing psychology goes. But women shouldn't get preferential treatment on the sole basis that they're women. The law is blind and impartial to those details. Or should be.

*Vain attempt to keep topic on track*

I know some people object to prison for various reasons.

Personally I would prefer to rehabillitate a criminal than simply hassle them for a few months (however this surely rules out short sentences...) and have them come out with a useful work skill and their drug habit (which is the biggest reason for their criminal acts) treated.

But in the spirit of the question - if a male should be sent to prison for a crime, should a female be sent to prison for the same crime.

Ah yes. Just like they treated their victims like human beings, with the compassion and empathy you infer above.....:rolleyes:
You make the common, and eroneous assumption that all incarcerated criminals committed violent crimes against other human beings, and therefore have lost their right to humanity.

In fact, in the West, the majority of criminals are incarcerated for crimes against property.
Prsion should be a perjorative experiance that fills criminals with the fear of God that they might ever return.As a deterrent, jails are a monumental failure. As a method of rehabilitation, they are also abysmal. In many cases, you get petty criminals coming out with their lives ruined, totally unable to fit back properly into society, with a skill set suited only to further criminality. So essentially, the system you endorse is a system vocational institutions to train criminals.

When crimes are committed, there is a wrong that needs righting. If all we do is focus on punishment, then we are doing nothing to restore balance. We are pushing for further imbalance.

Yes, there are violent criminals who need to be removed from society.

But violent criminals do not make up the majority of human beings who are incarcerated.

But in the spirit of the question - if a male should be sent to prison for a crime, should a female be sent to prison for the same crime.

I don't think you'll get much objection to the notion that the answer should be, generally speaking, yes.

I think the wider questions involve which crimes (regardless of the gender of the person committing them) should actually entail jail time etc. So I don't really think that delving into these discussions is straying from the topic.

I disagree, keeping viloent criminals locked up and off the streets is massivly benifical to us.

Fine. Then you agree that the majority of criminals who are not violent should be on the streets?

If a crime isn't serious enough for a woman to be sent in jail, then it's not serious enough for a man to be sent in jail abotu it, either. If a crime is serious enough for a man to be jailed for comitting it, then it's also a crime that should bring a prison term for a woman who does it.

QFT

i don't believe that it's a concious effort on the female inmates' part.

women may simply respond differently to the standard prison environment than do men. if this environment is one in which inmates suffer from a higher level of suicide or other mental problems, then the environment is not humane for holding these inmates. this would apply, i believe, whether it were women or men in there.

if it is the case that women on the whole, statistically, react psychologically in this adverse way to the same prison environment than men do, then this environment is unsuitable for them.


i'm not condonig not sending women to jail, but just changing what 'jail' is for women should this be the case.

Humane? Dude, people get raped and shanked and beaten and forced into racial gangs in prison. It's more humane for us to allow them to kill themselves, in that situation.

Alternatives? Why? Because otherwise they'll commit suicide? That's holding themselves for ransom - last I checked, it wasn't appropriate ettiquette to deal with domestic terrorists who hold people ransom under threat.

"Don't send me to jail or I'll kill myself!" - that's an arguable case in court, now? Sure, the person can be tried for a psych evaluation, but by no means do I encourage being soft on idiots that simply can't handle the punishment.

i don't believe that it's a concious effort on the female inmates' part.

women may simply respond differently to the standard prison environment than do men. if this environment is one in which inmates suffer from a higher level of suicide or other mental problems, then the environment is not humane for holding these inmates. this would apply, i believe, whether it were women or men in there.

if it is the case that women on the whole, statistically, react psychologically in this adverse way to the same prison environment than men do, then this environment is unsuitable for them.


i'm not condonig not sending women to jail, but just changing what 'jail' is for women should this be the case.

Fine. Then you agree that the majority of criminals who are not violent should be on the streets?

I refer you to my first post on this subject, the ninth post on page one.

You make the common, and eroneous assumption that all incarcerated criminals committed violent crimes against other human beings, and therefore have lost their right to humanity.

In fact, in the West, the majority of criminals are incarcerated for crimes against property.

don't forget that many violent crimes are committed outside of a persons' normal mindset, "in the spur of the moment" and are not preplanned inhumane actions.

As a deterrent, jails are a monumental failure. As a method of rehabilitation, they are also abysmal. In many cases, you get petty criminals coming out with their lives ruined, totally unable to fit back properly into society, with a skill set suited only to further criminality. So essentially, the system you endorse is a system vocational institutions to train criminals.

When crimes are committed, there is a wrong that needs righting. If all we do is focus on punishment, then we are doing nothing to restore balance. We are pushing for further imbalance.

Yes, there are violent criminals who need to be removed from society.

But violent criminals do not make up the majority of human beings who are incarcerated.

i agree.

volence begets violence, just as punishment begets further infractions.

I disagree, keeping viloent criminals locked up and off the streets is massivly benifical to us.

It really depends on the crime. If a guy can't seem to get a job and turns to crime, and then ends up harming someone in the process of a robbery, that same person might not be a danger if he just had a way to make a living. On the other hand, someone who is just going out and being wantonly violent is probably a danger to everyone else and should be kept off the street.

Recidivism rates drop sharply for most non-violent crimes and even a some violent ones if you just help the inmates get a life that actually works without crime. Get them some education, job training, and help them find a job, and it's amazing how few of them return to crime.

I refer you to my first post on this subject, the ninth post on page one.

Then we can agree on this point.

It really depends on the crime. If a guy can't seem to get a job and turns to crime, and then ends up harming someone in the process of a robbery, that same person might not be a danger if he just had a way to make a living. On the other hand, someone who is just going out and being wantonly violent is probably a danger to everyone else and should be kept off the street.

Recidivism rates drop sharply for most non-violent crimes and even a some violent ones if you just help the inmates get a life that actually works without crime. Get them some education, job training, and help them find a job, and it's amazing how few of them return to crime.

You may be right, but think on this one.

Whilst contemplateing a street robbery or a burglary, then the fact that violence may have to be used, must also be considered, if it has been considered that the crime will still take place, then it will do so with violence as a thought out consequence of the criminal action.

I think the wider questions involve which crimes (regardless of the gender of the person committing them) should actually entail jail time etc. So I don't really think that delving into these discussions is straying from the topic.


I have found some statitics!! Woot!

Linky (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/omcsq405tab2.xls)

About 15% of female prisoners are in there for violent crime, compared to 23% of male prisoners.

Crimes I feel should qualify a person for prison on this list are:
Violent, Sexual, Robbery and Burgulary - the last as it has an underestimated effect on victims.

These crimes account for about 28% of the female prison population and 48% of the male prison population.

the other two largest reasons:
'Theft': For women this is often shoplifting - you do not get jailed for a first offence of shoplifting. the shop will probably not even call the police and you will not likely even be charged until you have clocked up a number of offences. For someone to get punished for this they have to be pretty damn prolific.

Drugs: This depends on the reasons, personal use is not normally punished until several offences, however I suspect quite a few of these offences are dealing in drugs.

You may be right, but think on this one.

Whilst contemplateing a street robbery or a burglary, then the fact that violence may have to be used, must also be considered, if it has been considered that the crime will still take place, then it will do so with violence as a thought out consequence of the criminal action.

I think you are thinking a bit too rationally. I don't think most people who decide to rob a store sit down and think, "Well, let's see, it might get violent....." In fact, although many such criminals will carry a weapon, they generally don't think they'll actually use it. It is supposed to scare the other person/people. Then, with tensions running high, something might happen.

I don't think it's a very rational situation to begin with, and I don't think the consequences are generally well thought out. That's why recidivism rates are so low with education, job training, etc. Now there's not only more of a life to hold on to, but a much more rational way of looking at things.

Then we can agree on this point.

Sorry Neesika, which point?

I think you are thinking a bit too rationally. I don't think most people who decide to rob a store sit down and think, "Well, let's see, it might get violent....." In fact, although many such criminals will carry a weapon, they generally don't think they'll actually use it. It is supposed to scare the other person/people. Then, with tensions running high, something might happen.

I don't think it's a very rational situation to begin with, and I don't think the consequences are generally well thought out. That's why recidivism rates are so low with education, job training, etc. Now there's not only more of a life to hold on to, but a much more rational way of looking at things.

And again i totaly disagree, no mugger acidentl;y stabs a victiom, and no burlgar accidently coshes a victim.

Certian crime has inherent violence attached to it.

Sorry Neesika, which point?

As per your post (#8 actually) about who should be in prison and who should not.

Though seeing your disagreement with Dem, I suspect we would disagree on the definition of 'violent criminal'.

I have found some statitics!! Woot!

Linky (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/omcsq405tab2.xls)

About 15% of female prisoners are in there for violent crime, compared to 23% of male prisoners.

Crimes I feel should qualify a person for prison on this list are:
Violent, Sexual, Robbery and Burgulary - the last as it has an underestimated effect on victims.

These crimes account for about 28% of the female prison population and 48% of the male prison population.

the other two largest reasons:
'Theft': For women this is often shoplifting - you do not get jailed for a first offence of shoplifting. the shop will probably not even call the police and you will not likely even be charged until you have clocked up a number of offences. For someone to get punished for this they have to be pretty damn prolific.

Drugs: This depends on the reasons, personal use is not normally punished until several offences, however I suspect quite a few of these offences are dealing in drugs.

thanks. good stats.

so what amount of petty theft does it take to get into prison in the UK? what kind and amount of drug offenses?

you dont have that many people IN prison, compared to the US. do first and second offenders not GET some sort of rehabilitation help or are they just told not to do it again and sent back out on the streets? are people left to do as they will until they commit so very many offenses that they must be put into prison?

my thought is that perhaps these few thousand women are incorrigible. they have been given their dozen chances and didnt shape up. now they face the consequences for what has become a life of crime. yeah its rough. maybe reform is needed but isnt there some level of criminal behavior that merits prison time no matter who you are?

so what amount of petty theft does it take to get into prison in the UK? what kind and amount of drug offenses?
Petty theft - really quite a lot.

Drugs - not quite so sure.


you dont have that many people IN prison, compared to the US.
And the government wants to reduce it by not sending violent offenders to jail too...

Oh - that is not the prison population - it is the number of people going into prison each month of the year, although a similar amount come out each month too. But still - the UK prison population is very low compared to the US.

do first and second offenders not GET some sort of rehabilitation help or are they just told not to do it again and sent back out on the streets? are people left to do as they will until they commit so very many offenses that they must be put into prison?
They get (in approximate order):
Police caution (no trial, you get let go after your arrest).
Community Service.
Fines.
Anti-Social Behavior Orders.
Deferred Sentence.
and a few others before they get jailed.

Prison is normally viewed as the very last resort.

As per your post (#8 actually) about who should be in prison and who should not.

Though seeing your disagreement with Dem, I suspect we would disagree on the definition of 'violent criminal'.

I see, yes we can agree that prison should be reserved for violent ciminals. Heh we may well disagree what constitutes violent crime.

This is absolute horseshit that the British would even consider not sending women to prison. It's as if to say, "Here you go, ladies - a free pass to become serial killers. We'll just have you picking up trash in Trafalgar Square three days a week as punishment, and it's not like it's forever." But then again, I guess I can't expect anything from a country that sends murderers away for...what, five years? Seven? And then gives them anonymity and protection upon release?

The bottom line is, murderers should be given life in prison. A hard prison. Seven-day work weeks, ten-hour work days, two meals a day, shock collars, identification only by a number and not a name, and four to a cell. Anyone caught interacting in manners that are considered inappropriate gets shocked. And cameras everywhere, so the scum know that Big Brother is watching.

Serial killers? Life in solitary in a remote area with the most sadistic fuckers guarding them. Inject the bastards with artificial sweetener to see if they get cancer. Feed them slop and water through a mail slot twice a day, make them sleep on the fucking concrete, and if a guard wants to come in and abuse the hell out of them, the fuckers don't have any recourse. It's what should have been done to Jeffrey Dahmer.

But this? Going soft on criminals? Absolute shit. Worst idea I've ever heard. Why not just abolish the fucking penal system while we're at it? Why even have laws? Honestly, what's the fucking point?

Petty theft - really quite a lot.

Drugs - not quite so sure.


And the government wants to reduce it by not sending violent offenders to jail too...

They get (in approximate order):
Police caution (no trial, you get let go after your arrest).
Community Service.
Fines.
Anti-Social Behavior Orders.
Deferred Sentence.
and a few others before they get jailed.

Prison is normally viewed as the very last resort.


21% are in for less than a year; 58% for less than 4 years; 35% have 4 to life.


if its HARD to get into prison and even then you dont get a long term unless you are a serious criminal, i dont have a problem with keeping women in prison. what is the sense of leaving them out to commit crime after crime?

what is the sense of leaving them out to commit crime after crime?

It's better for everyone; we get something to moan about, the criminals can't complain about having their time wasted in jail, and the police get the councils to raise council tax so they get more money.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

It's better for everyone; we get something to moan about, the criminals can't complain about having their time wasted in jail, and the police get the councils to raise council tax so they get more money.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Here in the US, they release criminals early so the criminal can go do it again.

In 35 states, you're allowed to shoot them if they're doing it again in your presence (provided it's a potentially lethal felony).

21% are in for less than a year; 58% for less than 4 years; 35% have 4 to life.


if its HARD to get into prison and even then you dont get a long term unless you are a serious criminal, i dont have a problem with keeping women in prison. what is the sense of leaving them out to commit crime after crime?

The theory is that treatment in the community will rehabilitate them (male and female) and that making someone pick up litter on the weekends is more of a deterent than depriving them of their freedom for a few months... The hope from this is that the criminal will change their ways before they commit enough crimes to get jailed.

Oh.. also the prisons are all full and cannot accept any extra immates - this has led to waiting lists for prison and part time prison as well as more community style punishments.

It's better for everyone; we get something to moan about, the criminals can't complain about having their time wasted in jail, and the police get the councils to raise council tax so they get more money.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

lol

ahhhh now i see the benefits....OPEN THE PRISONS.

why spend your tax money out of town at some prison holding facility instead of keeping it local trying to police a disorderly populace?

why did we ever rebel?

And again i totaly disagree, no mugger acidentl;y stabs a victiom, and no burlgar accidently coshes a victim.

Accidental and unintended are not the same thing. What I mean is that criminals often go into a crime with no intent to harm anyone. But when things get messy, especially if the person being robbed has a weapon as well, the weapon the criminal brought is much more likely to get used - whether they originally wanted to or not.

When tensions are high and things seem to be going wrong, people in general are rather unlikely to think it through rationally.

And stabbing actually can happen accidentally. If you're holding a knife to someone, and a struggle ensues, you may end up actually stabbing them when you never had any intention to, just as part of the struggle.

Certian crime has inherent violence attached to it.

Indeed. Murder, rape, etc. Burglary, not necessarily. Grand theft auto, not necessarily. These crimes can be committed by violent people. They can be committed by people who don't wish to use violence but end up doing so in the spur of the moment. Or they can be committed by someone who doesn't physically harm anyone while committing the crime. Only the first category of people are likely dangerous to society if they all receive rehabilitation, rather than simply incarceration. With nothing but incarceration, they're most likely all a danger to society when their time is up.

In 35 states, you're allowed to shoot them if they're doing it again in your presence (provided it's a potentially lethal felony).

Part of the reason why the US murder rate is about 5 times higher than the UK one but almost all other crimes are about 5 times lower.

Eve - do you know where I can find which states allow what methods for self defence?

The theory is that treatment in the community will rehabilitate them (male and female) and that making someone pick up litter on the weekends is more of a deterent than depriving them of their freedom for a few months... The hope from this is that the criminal will change their ways before they commit enough crimes to get jailed.

Oh.. also the prisons are all full and cannot accept any extra immates - this has led to waiting lists for prison and part time prison as well as more community style punishments.

i can see going easy on non violent offenders in the hope that they will learn to behave themselves better. most outgrow the behavior over time anyway. no sense sending them to prison to live with serious criminals who will teach them bigger and better ways to offend.

but if those methods are tried and dont work there is some sense in upping the ante. one trip to prison is enough for most. the rest spend their lives in and out of prison because they will never be able to conform to the expectations of society. *shrug* there is no sense leaving those people out of prison making other people's lives miserable.

The theory is that treatment in the community will rehabilitate them (male and female) and that making someone pick up litter on the weekends is more of a deterent than depriving them of their freedom for a few months... The hope from this is that the criminal will change their ways before they commit enough crimes to get jailed.

Oh.. also the prisons are all full and cannot accept any extra immates - this has led to waiting lists for prison and part time prison as well as more community style punishments.

If we are talking about non-violent crimes and a first or second offense than I have no problem with this kind of program, it would give more prison space for actual violent offenders. If the woman has been there a couple of times before than clearly the "rehabilitation" hasn't had any affect and should get the standard prison experience.

Accidental and unintended are not the same thing. What I mean is that criminals often go into a crime with no intent to harm anyone. But when things get messy, especially if the person being robbed has a weapon as well, the weapon the criminal brought is much more likely to get used - whether they originally wanted to or not.

Ohh yeah I sorta agree, but my point is that if the criminal goes out with a weapon, then that means he or she, has thought about violence, has thought that perhaps a show of violence may be needed, if they have thought about crime with violence and they still carry out the crime, and they still take a weapon and violence happens, then it is premeditated violence. For it not to be would mean that the criminal does not take a weapon.



When tensions are high and things seem to be going wrong, people in general are rather unlikely to think it through rationally.

Crime is a rational disicion, no crimal just accidently perputates a crime, in fact most crimes are planned, so that the criminal does not get caught.

If you mug sombody in the street, you must have had to think, ohhh I'll mug this person. Even if it is a spur of the moment oppertunist attack, there was a thought, ohhh I'll mug this person.


And stabbing actually can happen accidentally. If you're holding a knife to someone, and a struggle ensues, you may end up actually stabbing them when you never had any intention to, just as part of the struggle.

Hold on then, lets clarify this. Are you really saying that a victim of a mugging getting accidently stabed by the mugger, is in the wrong, that he shouldn't have struggled and that is his fault? jo of course you are not.

Bottom, line if a mugger takes a weaponout, then accidental or not the guilt is his.


Indeed. Murder, rape, etc. Burglary, not necessarily. Grand theft auto, not necessarily. These crimes can be committed by violent people. They can be committed by people who don't wish to use violence but end up doing so in the spur of the moment. Or they can be committed by someone who doesn't physically harm anyone while committing the crime. Only the first category of people are likely dangerous to society if they all receive rehabilitation, rather than simply incarceration. With nothing but incarceration, they're most likely all a danger to society when their time is up.


Burglary is definatly a violent crime, ask anybody that has been a victim of it. Ask yourself this, if you woke in the middle of the night to find your house being burgled, who much force would you use to protect you and yours?

Burgulars know this, and plan accordingly burglary is one of the most uglyst of crimes that can be commited.

"Vulnerable women who are not a danger to society should not be going to prison," she said.

And if the justice system works, it sure as hell ain't the vulnerable women who are not a danger to society going to prison, quite on the contrary.

that's ridiculous, women should be treated exactly the same as men in the eyes of the law. while prison is still the correction method of choice there should be places in prisons for women.

the only exception i can possibly see is if they are pregnant or nursing, then perhaps they should be kept in secure pre-/ante-natal clinics then their kids can be given up for adoption or foster homes or whatever according to the wish of the mother. once they no longer have the kid relying on them there is no reason why they can't get the same punishment as men.

Damn, who's the idiot who came up with that idea?

I hate ladies who think they need special treatment.

They dont want to be treated equal, they want to be treated like a "lady".

So if they want special treatment, first they have to admit that I'm better than them in every way, and that they -deserve- better treatment than me on the grounds that they'r weaker.

So, unless they have a room with an audio recorder for women to admit that they are not as physicaly capable as men to survive prision, they should not give them special punishments.


Also note that I'm not a sexist. Equal treatment means we all get spit in our eyes and gravel in our guts.

Ah yes. Just like they treated their victims like human beings, with the compassion and empathy you infer above.....:rolleyes:

I generally prefer my government to behave better than criminals.

Damn, who's the idiot who came up with that idea?

I hate ladies who think they need special treatment.

They dont want to be treated equal, they want to be treated like a "lady".

So if they want special treatment, first they have to admit that I'm better than them in every way, and that they -deserve- better treatment than me on the grounds that they'r weaker.

Also note that I'm not a sexist.

Your first position does not jive with the second. I bet one of your best friends is black huh?

Equal treatment means we all get spit in our eyes and gravel in our guts.

Generally I prefer that equal treatment to mean we are all treated at the highest common denominator, not the lowest.

Fundamentally this is three questions that need to be answered.

The first is "what purpose does prison serve?" Once we answer that question we move to the next one.

"does the current state of women's prisons adequately serve that purpose?"

then you ask the third

"is there some difference biologically or psychologically that would make current women's prison's inadequate yet at the same time make substantially similar conditions in men's prisons adequate?"

If the answer to those questions are "no" and "yes", then you should reevaluate women's prisons.

If the answer are "no" and "no", then you should reevaluate both.

If you answer "yes", then you need to question whether what you believe the purpose for prison is is in fact what is in the best interests of society.

Duh.

Is this the most united poll in the history of NSG?

Currently with 96.55% in Favour.

Fundamentally this is three questions that need to be answered.
*snippage of Arthais' test*
Stop that. It's entirely too lawyerly.

Generally I prefer that equal treatment to mean we are all treated at the highest common denominator, not the lowest.

Exactly.

Not a hard concept to understand...so why do people want to jump to the LCD instead?

They're criminals. They should be treadted as such. I don't care if they're male or female.

I disagree with the way the government handles what the function of jail is.
The prison should not aim to stop reoffending... it should stop the desire to re-offend. The criminal must understand why he was wrong, and must feel sorry for the crime he commits. This means he does not develop/keep any negative feelings for the police or the law.

And I don't see why women should get treated any differently. Chuck 'em in male prisons*, and see how they like that!

*(but obviously separated from contact)

I generally prefer my government to behave better than criminals.

Yeah, why be honest?

They're criminals. They should be treadted as such. I don't care if they're male or female.

I don't care if they're friggin' kittens!

The prison should not aim to stop reoffending... it should stop the desire to re-offend. The criminal must understand why he was wrong, and must feel sorry for the crime he commits. This means he does not develop/keep any negative feelings for the police or the law.

Ahahaha, that's funny :D

And if it ever comes to pass I'm becoming a career criminal.

Crime is a rational disicion, no crimal just accidently perputates a crime, in fact most crimes are planned, so that the criminal does not get caught.

Once again, you are trying to equate "accidental" with something that is not equivalent. The fact that it is not accidental does not make it necessarily rational. Rationally, one would know that a life of crime will not end well. But, for many, it seems like the only available option, and so they go with it. When presented with other options, most people take them.

Hold on then, lets clarify this. Are you really saying that a victim of a mugging getting accidently stabed by the mugger, is in the wrong, that he shouldn't have struggled and that is his fault? jo of course you are not.

Bottom, line if a mugger takes a weaponout, then accidental or not the guilt is his.

Indeed. All I'm saying is that a person who becomes violent during the commission of an otherwise more petty crime is not necessarily a violent person who will be a danger if they receive rehabilitation.

Burglary is definatly a violent crime, ask anybody that has been a victim of it.

I have. And it wasn't violent. In fact, I never even saw the person who did it. It pissed me off. It cost me money. But it caused no physical harm to anyone.

Ask yourself this, if you woke in the middle of the night to find your house being burgled, who much force would you use to protect you and yours?

To protect people? Whatever was necessary. To "protect" objects? Very little, unless perhaps the object in question was somehow irreplaceable.

Fundamentally this is three questions that need to be answered.

The first is "what purpose does prison serve?" Once we answer that question we move to the next one.

I think there are three purposes here. One is, quite simply, punishment for crimes. The person who committed the crime must recognize that there are negative consequences.

Another (arguably more important in most cases) is rehabilitation. The person who committed the crime must have other options available to them. Someone with a good job is much less likely to turn to crime than someone without, and many who do turn to crime simply don't have the skillset to get such a job.

And the third is protection of other citizens. Some people have to be kept away from the rest of society to keep them from harming others. They aren't mentally disabled (or at least aren't diagnosed as such), but are highly likely to commit crimes against others if released. They have to be kept away from those they would harm.

"does the current state of women's prisons adequately serve that purpose?"

I don't know much about the British system. I would say that the current state of prisons in general in the US don't serve all of these purposes. They are places of punishment, perhaps, and they do keep offenders away from everyone else. But most don't do anything to prevent further crime after release.

then you ask the third

"is there some difference biologically or psychologically that would make current women's prison's inadequate yet at the same time make substantially similar conditions in men's prisons adequate?"

I highly doubt it.

I disagree with the way the government handles what the function of jail is.
The prison should not aim to stop reoffending... it should stop the desire to re-offend. The criminal must understand why he was wrong, and must feel sorry for the crime he commits. This means he does not develop/keep any negative feelings for the police or the law.

Indeed. But one must also understand that all (or even most) crime is not committed because someone just wants to go out and commit a crime. Many crimes are committed because the criminal simply doesn't see another way to get by in life. If we arm them with a skillset and provide opportunities to start a new life when they are released, that option is clear.

Indeed. But one must also understand that all (or even most) crime is not committed because someone just wants to go out and commit a crime. Many crimes are committed because the criminal simply doesn't see another way to get by in life. If we arm them with a skillset and provide opportunities to start a new life when they are released, that option is clear.

That's an excuse I just don't understand. I don't know if this is the same in the US, but herabouts there are plenty of factory jobs that require next-to zero education, and very little ability at English; you basically have to turn up consistently and do what you're told (with pointing and hand waving considered an acceptable means of communication if you meet criterion 1). They all pay at least minimum wage (obviously), and most pay more.

If I earned minimum wage (£5.35/hr) and was paid for 40 hours per week I would be able to afford all my bills for my life as is, except perhaps my car (which isn't an issue; I live two miles or less from a lot of factories, and I've walked further for less). I wouldn't have a lot of spare cash, but I'd have a flat to myself, food, and my bills paid. If you lived with other people you'd be better off.

So given that this isn't a low-crime area, what's the excuse?

That's an excuse I just don't understand.

It isn't really an excuse. I don't think it excuses anything. It's just an explanation. It's the reason that actual rehabilitation programs work in so many cases. I don't really understand the mindset, as I haven't grown up the way some of these people have, so I don't know what I would have thought. But it definitely does seem to work when we attack the mindset, rather than the person.

I don't know if this is the same in the US, but herabouts there are plenty of factory jobs that require next-to zero education, and very little ability at English; you basically have to turn up consistently and do what you're told (with pointing and hand waving considered an acceptable means of communication if you meet criterion 1). They all pay at least minimum wage (obviously), and most pay more.

Does your average kid who grew up practically on the streets know that? Are they told from birth that taking such a job means a dead-end life? Are they pressured in their neighborhoods towards crime? I think it is important to note that, even if opportunities are there, people won't necessarily see them, or think they are viable options, without some sort of effort at education.

And then there's the fact that living on minimum wage, in some areas of the country, means barely living at all...

Does your average kid who grew up practically on the streets know that?
Heh, nice wording. If they've somehow managed to miss it then as soon as they reach signing-on age they'll do so, and the Jobcentre will happily tell them. They'll also tell them which local paper to look in on a Thursday evening to find hundreds (literally) of factory jobs. They might even provide the paper, if they're really lucky.
After a while the jobcentre will send them on a course (go or your benefits stop), where they'll explain it in really simple words, and definitely provide the paper (and lots of encouragement). I know, I've been on the course.
Are they told from birth that taking such a job means a dead-end life?
Maybe.
But if they thought about it, they might realise that people don't come from Poland to take such jobs because of the scenery. They do so because they're better off taking a minimum-wage (if they're unlucky) factory job in Corby than staying in Poland and doing whatever they do there.
Are they pressured in their neighborhoods towards crime?
Yes, I imagine that is a problem. Not a problem that encourages me to think criminals should be let back out after committing a crime; quite the opposite, to be honest...
And then there's the fact that living on minimum wage, in some areas of the country, means barely living at all...
I wouldn't want to try it in London, no. But in Corby? Fine.
But still we have plenty of crime herabouts...

Heh, nice wording. If they've somehow managed to miss it then as soon as they reach signing-on age they'll do so, and the Jobcentre will happily tell them.

Signing-on age? Job Centre?

Maybe.
But if they thought about it, they might realise that people don't come from Poland to take such jobs because of the scenery.

They might. Or they might think that the Polish are "stealing" jobs that they would otherwise have and that those jobs are all taken. Or they might be so busy trying to get by that they don't really think about it at all.

Yes, I imagine that is a problem. Not a problem that encourages me to think criminals should be let back out after committing a crime; quite the opposite, to be honest...

If we never let them back out - if they never become productive members of society - we have done nothing but waste money.

Women are dying in person? Guess what? SO ARE MEN!:eek:

Boo! Unequal treatment! Boo!

QFT.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/endthread.gif

Women are dying in person? Guess what? SO ARE MEN!:eek:

Wait...no, that can't be right. That's a radical paranoid conspiracy theory isn't it? You fuckin' commie.

:D

:) @ poll results.

Signing-on age? Job Centre?
Ah, sorry, Britishisms:
The signing-on age is whatever age you have to be to "sign on" to get Jobseeker's Allowance, or the Dole as it's colloquially known. Probably 18, I'm not sure (I didn't need it until after I had a Masters degree :rolleyes: ). If you're out of work you can sign on and get free money, and contributions towards rent, council tax, stuff like that if you fit the criteria (again, don't know exactly; I was living with my parents at the time, so I just got the basic few quid a week).
The JobCentre is where you go to sign on, and they're supposed to help you find a job. You have to go there once a fortnight, or no free money for you. They have a database of jobs going, and after a while give you an advisor to help you look.

They're possibly similar to US social security and whatever office you go to for that, crossed with an employment agency. Not a bad system, really; could use a bit of a shake-up - you can spend a lot of time doing nothing at home, which isn't helpful - but that's another thread.

They might. Or they might think that the Polish are "stealing" jobs that they would otherwise have and that those jobs are all taken. Or they might be so busy trying to get by that they don't really think about it at all.
Then they're not looking at the job section in Thursday's Evening Telegraph, or the window of the JobCentre, or listening to their advisor, or, frankly, even bothering to try at all.

If we never let them back out - if they never become productive members of society - we have done nothing but waste money.
Most people manage to avoid committing any significant crimes throughout their life. Trying to rehabilitate those who do, only to fail and have them out in society, carrying on their misdeeds and encouraging others to do the same, will not only waste money but make the other problems worse - as you pointed out.

"Vulnerable women who are not a danger to society should not be going to prison," she said.
Anyone who isn't a danger to society shouldn't be going to prison, but let's not let reality get in the way of the double-standard, hypocrisy brigade.

BBC Linkey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6444961.stm)



I personally think this is really dumb - I never knew that someones body parts were mitigating in how they should be sentenced these days. They propose even ending strip searches - presumeably relying on an 'honor' system?

For context for those outside of the UK - it is pretty hard to get sent to prison here, with many criminals racking up numerous convictions for rather serious crimes before a custodial sentence is used. While I ackonolege that some of these women are in there for relatively low end crime I suspect that many of them are in for more serious crimes. I'll see if I can dig up some figures.

I'm partly hoping that someone here could offer a good reason why someone shoudl recieve a lower sentence for the same crime because of their gender.

If you vote that a woman should not go to prison for the same crime as a man can you please state why - I honestly am interested to hear peoples views.

EDIT/UPDATE:

I have found some statitics!! Woot!

Linky (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/omcsq405tab2.xls)

About 15% of female prisoners are in there for violent crime, compared to 23% of male prisoners.

Crimes I feel should qualify a person for prison on this list are:
Violent, Sexual, Robbery and Burgulary - the last as it has an underestimated effect on victims.

These crimes account for about 28% of the female prison population and 48% of the male prison population.

Jeez, reverse sexism is a bitch.

No kidding.

This is looking like it could end up being the most one-sided poll in NS history. I voted WITH the trend, btw. ;)

Primarily on the grounds of equal punishment for equal crime.

EDIT: freaking timewarps...
+1 on all three counts.

BBC Linkey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6444961.stm)



I personally think this is really dumb - I never knew that someones body parts were mitigating in how they should be sentenced these days. They propose even ending strip searches - presumeably relying on an 'honor' system?

For context for those outside of the UK - it is pretty hard to get sent to prison here, with many criminals racking up numerous convictions for rather serious crimes before a custodial sentence is used. While I ackonolege that some of these women are in there for relatively low end crime I suspect that many of them are in for more serious crimes. I'll see if I can dig up some figures.

I'm partly hoping that someone here could offer a good reason why someone shoudl recieve a lower sentence for the same crime because of their gender.

If you vote that a woman should not go to prison for the same crime as a man can you please state why - I honestly am interested to hear peoples views.

EDIT/UPDATE:

I have found some statitics!! Woot!

Linky (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/omcsq405tab2.xls)

About 15% of female prisoners are in there for violent crime, compared to 23% of male prisoners.

Crimes I feel should qualify a person for prison on this list are:
Violent, Sexual, Robbery and Burgulary - the last as it has an underestimated effect on victims.

These crimes account for about 28% of the female prison population and 48% of the male prison population.

There should be NO gender favoritism; women should go to prison for any crime that would put a man in prison, because if you show favoritism toward women, then more women will commit more crimes because they can do so without getting as stiff a sentence as a man would get.

They shouldn't ban strip searches, but I think they should make it so it's a female-friendly system, where the guards are women. You can make minor changes that make the system work without breaking it.

It seems to me that for both genders there should be different levels of imprisonment based on the nature of the crime. Why put harden criminals in with petty and white collar criminals? I can see putting people charges with varying degrees of murder, except manslaughter (which is often involuntary) in with those charged with sexual crimes.

So, only those who are a true threat to society would go to maximum security prisons and those charges with lesser crimes would go to lower security prisons/half-way homes. After all, someone who is only in for a small time crime shouldn't be shoved in a cell and forgotten about.

There are some crimes which should be treated differently based on gender because of instances where there are psychological reasons involved.

If, by "female-friendly", you mean putting women in charge of ALL prisons, whether male or female, then I disagree. Men's prison guards should be men, and women's prison guards should be women.

The headline says "Scrap Woman's Prisons". Maybe this could be interpreted to mean that there should be no separate prisons for women and that men and women should go to the same prisons. How about that for an idea?

Yeah, and then the women will wind up pregnant and/or abused. How about that for a consequence?

The headline says "Scrap Woman's Prisons". Maybe this could be interpreted to mean that there should be no separate prisons for women and that men and women should go to the same prisons. How about that for an idea?

.... /cough dumb /cough
really, what logic dose it make to put people who rape women in a place with women...

.... /cough dumb /cough
really, what logic dose it make to put people who rape women in a place with women...

None whatsoever, which is why I say they should be separate.

Indeed. But one must also understand that all (or even most) crime is not committed because someone just wants to go out and commit a crime. Many crimes are committed because the criminal simply doesn't see another way to get by in life.

Is that kind of like learned helplessness? We studied it in psychology today; there was an experiment in which they shocked dogs repeatedly for a long enough time with no means of escape available to them that eventually, even when the dogs were allowed a means of escape from the shock with some effort, they didn't bother to try because they were so used to being unable to do anything about the shocks that they thought they couldn't do anything about it. We also learned that it applies to people as well. Is that sort of what that is?

.... /cough dumb /cough
really, what logic dose it make to put people who rape women in a place with women...

The same logic as putting men who rape other men in a place with a bunch of men.

Indeed, a reform of the women's prison system is necessary. I say reserve some prisons for the maximum offenders, and have the non-violent offenders screen for a half-way house where I'm the 'warden', and the prisoners take turns either being 'prisoner' or 'jail gaurd', depending on how the script goes.

There will still be bars, only the handcuffs may be furry. And there will be plenty of cameras. This way, the guilty shall be sure to pay their debt back to ... society. Yeah, that's it.

EDIT: Strip searches would of course, be mandatory.

Women need to go to prison just like men, if they commit crimes.

If men didn't go to prison, we would never have cultural contributions like the blues being disseminated widely.

And if women don't go to prison, we don't get other cultural contributions ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_prison_films').