NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently, both US and EU judiciary courts have claimed that the so-called "detention under article 41.bis" (by the italian codes of laws) is torture - or however an infringement of the human rights of the detainee.

The "41.bis" is a regime of "harsh" detention, applied to the most perilous inmates (usually sentenced to life in jail or to the newly-instated maximum, that is 30 years). It is used mostly against mafia leaders (like Salvatore "Totò" Riina of the Corleonesi clan) and terrorists (like members of the Red Brigades).

The harshness means:
-no contacts with other detainees.
-no telephone, snail mail only and always through censorship (both incoming and outgoing).
-isolation cell 23h/day, plus 1 h in the open air alone. Continuous watch via CC-TV.
-1 visit of 1 relative each month, no physical contact allowed (although in Naples happened that the wife of a boss detained under 41.bis got pregnant during one of such visits... talk about security)
-no working-while-in-detention programs, or semiliberty or permits etc. . The detainee is allowed to get books from the internal library, or to watch television in his own cell.
-lawyers can talk with the detainee only while a guard is present, and talks can be recorded (audio/video).

The 41.bis detention has been proved very successful, expecially against mafiosi, because it effectly cuts away the mafia bosses from their organisations - thus avoiding what happened before its introduction, that is, the bosses were able to run their "bisniss" even from the jail.

...is this torture? Is this an infringement of human rights? I don't think so, but I can be quite biased against the mafiosi.

(poll coming)

Recently, both US and EU judiciary courts have claimed that the so-called "detention under article 41.bis" (by the italian codes of laws) is torture - or however an infringement of the human rights of the detainee.

The "41.bis" is a regime of "harsh" detention, applied to the most perilous inmates (usually sentenced to life in jail or to the newly-instated maximum, that is 30 years). It is used mostly against mafia leaders (like Salvatore "Totò" Riina of the Corleonesi clan) and terrorists (like members of the Red Brigades).

The harshness means:
-no contacts with other detainees.
-no telephone, snail mail only and always through censorship (both incoming and outgoing).
-isolation cell 23h/day, plus 1 h in the open air alone. Continuous watch via CC-TV.
-1 visit of 1 relative each month, no physical contact allowed (although in Naples happened that the wife of a boss detained under 41.bis got pregnant during one of such visits... talk about security)
-no working-while-in-detention programs, or semiliberty or permits etc. . The detainee is allowed to get books from the internal library, or to watch television in his own cell.
-lawyers can talk with the detainee only while a guard is present, and talks can be recorded (audio/video).

The 41.bis detention has been proved very successful, expecially against mafiosi, because it effectly cuts away the mafia bosses from their organisations - thus avoiding what happened before its introduction, that is, the bosses were able to run their "bisniss" even from the jail.

...is this torture? Is this an infringement of human rights? I don't think so, but I can be quite biased against the mafiosi.

(poll coming)


Not quite torture, but definately border-line

-no contacts with other detainees.
-isolation cell 23h/day, plus 1 h in the open air alone. Continuous watch via CC-TV.
-1 visit of 1 relative each month, no physical contact allowed

disgusting abuse which we learned about 200 years ago leads to suicide (which I guess is what the CCTV is for)

the prisoners literally hung themselves with there bedsheets after 3 days

-no telephone, snail mail only and always through censorship (both incoming and outgoing).
-lawyers can talk with the detainee only while a guard is present, and talks can be recorded (audio/video).

which affectively silences the prisoner I wonder what actually goes on in those cells

The 41.bis detention has been proved very successful, expecially against mafiosi, because it effectly cuts away the mafia bosses from their organisations - thus avoiding what happened before its introduction, that is, the bosses were able to run their "bisniss" even from the jail.

yes thats how you fight crime attacking the symptoms FTW!

...is this torture? Is this an infringement of human rights? I don't think so, but I can be quite biased against the mafiosi.

awww bless do you think the little mafiosi men live under your bed waiting for you to fall asleep?

Not torture. But they should get private meetings with their lawyers.

No, this is not torture by any means, and I say that as one of the louder and more vehement denouncers of torture around here.

If I were in charge, I might increase the outside activity from 1 hour/day to 2 hours/day, just because it will make for a healthier inmate, and healthy inmates are cheaper to care for than sickly inmates.

I might also allow -- or, actually, require them to do some kind of productive work within the prison itself -- inside their cell or in a specially designated work room for solitary confinement inmates. This is my concession to the American puritanical work ethic notion that "the devil makes work for idle hands." It is not strictly necessary.

Finally, as an American, I do not like the idea of no private meetings with their own lawyers, but I will not try to impose US law on Italy.

However, I disagree with the idea that this kind of treatment could be called torture.

Psychological torture....

No, this is not torture by any means, and I say that as one of the louder and more vehement denouncers of torture around here.

If I were in charge, I would increase the outside activity from 1 hour/day to 2 hours/day, just because it will make for a healthier inmate, and healthy inmates are cheaper to care for than sickly inmates.

I might also allow -- or, actually, require them to do some kind of productive work within the prison itself -- inside their cell or in a specially designated work room for solitary confinement inmates. This is my concession to the American puritanical work ethic notion that "the devil makes work for idle hands." It is not strictly necessary.

Finally, as an American, I do not like the idea of no private meetings with their own lawyers, but I will not try to impose US law on Italy.

EDIT: I should add that I would also include some kind of rehabilitation program, some therapeutic kind of thing, even for lifers. The reason is that controlled social interaction of a positive kind is infinitely preferable to no social interaction at all, which will only harm the inmate.

However, I disagree with the idea that this kind of treatment could be called torture.

EDIT: Also, finally, I think US courts have got a lot of goddamned nerve to chime in on this issue, and that Italy would be within their rights to tell my country's courts to blow it out the other end, considering how we treat our prisoners over here. US prisons are nightmarish shambles of a dystopian hellscape, and any nation that still has GITMO up and running should just shut the hell up about other countries' prisons.

Considering that they are allowed books and TV, it's not exactly what would normally be called "solitary confinement", although it is harsh.
I'm pretty sure some aspects of this are against human rights, most certainly the bit about the lawyer and the extremely limited number of visits.

I'd say it's harsh, but it's not torture.

awww bless do you think the little mafiosi men live under your bed waiting for you to fall asleep?

I wouldn't be quite so condescending... the Mafia is quite a problem even in modern Italy, to the extend that could actually make you believe in conspiracy theories.

Naaa that ain't torture. Infringements on a persons rights perhaps, but then they are criminals so fuck it.

Seriously though, we do need to sort out out crime and punishment. It seems to me that the Victorian idea of prison being a rehabilitation just does not work, and it also seems obvious that the majority of people would like to see prison as a punishment, which at this moment is not what it's aim is.

So either find a way of rehabilitation that works, or make prison a punishment.

-isolation cell 23h/day, plus 1 h in the open air alone. Continuous watch via CC-TV.This part is rather cruel.

Naaa that ain't torture. Infringements on a persons rights perhaps, but then they are criminals so fuck it.

Seriously though, we do need to sort out out crime and punishment. It seems to me that the Victorian idea of prison being a rehabilitation just does not work, and it also seems obvious that the majority of people would like to see prison as a punishment, which at this moment is not what it's aim is.

So either find a way of rehabilitation that works, or make prison a punishment.

What... seriously? The Victorians didn't rehabilitate. They put people in prison, deported them and hanged them, for things as trivial as stealing a hankerchief or "loitering". The Victorians were simply the first to put their prison inmates to work, as a source of really, really cheap labour. Or just put them to work on something entirely pointless, they actually invented machines that served no other purpose than to create "har labour" for prisoners.

Rehabilitation was thought up later on, when people discovered that no matter how harsh the punishment, it does not work as deterrent.

Psychological torture....
I understand that point, but I disagree that this kind of confinement necessarily, in and of itself, rises to the level of psychological torture.

I don't think that it's torture, maybe psychological, but it definitely is an infringement of their rights imo.

Naaa that ain't torture. Infringements on a persons rights perhaps, but then they are criminals so fuck it.

Seriously though, we do need to sort out out crime and punishment. It seems to me that the Victorian idea of prison being a rehabilitation just does not work, and it also seems obvious that the majority of people would like to see prison as a punishment, which at this moment is not what it's aim is.

So either find a way of rehabilitation that works, or make prison a punishment.
Now, I definitely disagree with that. It is my view that people who think prison should be a punishment, with no attempt at rehabilitation, tend to be people who are ignorant of what prisons were like before the advent of rehabilitation, when they were just about ongoing punishment. Now THOSE prison systems were torture, indeed. To go back to that would be a serious diminishment of civilization.

I do not believe that the majority of people in the world really want that, but if they do, then I would want to make sure the majority are disappointed.

leads to suicide (which I guess is what the CCTV is for)
yes, it's also to prevent that.


which affectively silences the prisoner I wonder what actually goes on in those cells

nothing. Beatings of detainees in Italy generally happen before they go under trial, to extort them confessions - it happened during the G8 in Genoa (2001), but there is no physical torture of detainees once they have been tried.


awww bless do you think the little mafiosi men live under your bed waiting for you to fall asleep?
:rolleyes:
No. I'm biased against them because I know that the mafia is dangerous for the health of our country, and, because of my worries, I can be biased to the point of not being able to judge whether a measure taken against the mafiosi is too harsh.

I know (and it has been documented throught endless "maxitrials" - and by endless I mean decades-long) that the various mafia organisations control most of the economy and of the political power in the southern regions of Italy (the proper "mafia" in Sicily, the "n'drangheta" in Calabria, the "Sacra Corona Unita" in Puglia, the "camorra" in Naples), and that they have a lot of political and business allies both at the Parliament and in the more economically-developed northern regions. With the 41.bis, many "families" have been metaphorically "beheaded", and it has led to the arrest of many infamous and powerful bosses, like Riina or Provenzano.

Not torture. But they should get private meetings with their lawyers.

That was made because many lawyers actually misused their role, carrying back and forth orders and info for the jailed bosses.

:rolleyes:
No. I'm biased against them because I know that the mafia is dangerous for the health of our country, and, because of my worries, I can be biased to the point of not being able to judge whether a measure taken against the mafiosi is too harsh.

Of course not all bias is bad. I'm biased against, racists, child molesters, and rapists myself, and I find these biases do not harm my or my life at all.:D

I don't think it is torture, it is limiting human space and very degrading, and probably very expensive to carry out and i would imagine need a whole lot of paperwork to keep going but it's not torture.
I suppose it's a balance between punishment and rehabilitation that is needed.

Not quite torture, but definately border-line

I'd say it's harsh, but it's not torture.

Not torture. But they should get private meetings with their lawyers.

No, this is not torture by any means, and I say that as one of the louder and more vehement denouncers of torture around here.

Naaa that ain't torture. Infringements on a persons rights perhaps, but then they are criminals so fuck it.

perhaps we should lock you all in a small room and see if the lack of social contact affects you

seriously there is a reason cat ladies are batshit insane and its due to the emotional breakdown of not having the essential social contact

I wouldn't be quite so condescending... the Mafia is quite a problem even in modern Italy, to the extend that could actually make you believe in conspiracy theories.

I think a bigger problem is bogey men affecting ones opinion, Risottia has actually stated this as okay because after all its the mafiosi and thus we can do what we want

Seriously though, we do need to sort out out crime and punishment.

the fact that crime has fallen says otherwise, but I won't let that spoil your daily mail rant

It seems to me that the Victorian idea of prison being a rehabilitation just does not work,

unfortunately the advent of the tabloid had killed prison reform long before the Victorian age not that it mattered since prison has never managed to get out of the priest trousers

of course we could just go back to hangings for minor crimes because hey deterrents are not childish knee jerking at all!

and it also seems obvious that the majority of people would like to see prison as a punishment, which at this moment is not what it's aim is.

source?

So either find a way of rehabilitation that works, or make prison a punishment.

how about we stop letting lynch mobs affect the legal system and use rational science instead of this existential nonsense

how about we stop letting lynch mobs affect the legal system and use rational science instead of this existential nonsense
And just what is so "rational" about assuming that people who've risen to the top in Mafia families could be rehabilitated?

it is limiting human space and very degrading..sends reality memo:

Jail is degrading

I do not see the actual point of this. The man/woman can do nothing to benefit society nor improve him/herself (unless the library is far better than I assume) ?

Wasteful.

perhaps we should lock you all in a small room and see if the lack of social contact affects you

Me? It would not effect me much at all, I'm one of these strange people that can do very well on their own. You do know that we are not all the same huh?

the fact that crime has fallen says otherwise, but I won't let that spoil your daily mail rant

Heh you found that to be ranty? Really? Ohh and source?

source?

Umm history do you okay? Go read a few books and you'll find that the Victorians tried to reform prison to one of a system of rehabilitation. The idea was that long periods of time spent on your own, would naturally turn the mind inward and you would reflect upon the mistakes you had made, and how you had wronged society.



how about we stop letting lynch mobs affect the legal system and use rational science instead of this existential nonsense

I'm sorry if you mistook my words for a rant, I only wished to point out how the ideal behind the Victorian prison reforms has not worked.

sends reality memo:

Jail is degrading

Yeah, jail is degrading, i never said it wasn't degrading. You can keep your reality memo.
However i could debate about whether reality is really what you think it is?

They aren't in their to benefit society, they are there to pay for the crimes they have commited.

I do not see why those things have to exclude eachother.

They aren't in their to benefit society, they are there to pay for the crimes they have commited. If it works, so be it. Don't like it, then do not commit crime, that simple.

Umm they are not you know, they are in fact there to be rehabilitated.

They aren't in their to benefit society, they are there to pay for the crimes they have commited. If it works, so be it. Don't like it, then do not commit crime, that simple.

I think a bigger problem is bogey men affecting ones opinion, Risottia has actually stated this as okay because after all its the mafiosi and thus we can do what we want


Please, underline the parts of the OP where I said that "we can do what we want to the mafiosi".

You can't? You bet you can't, because I didn't say that. I happen to remember what I said in the OP: I said that my own opinions can be considered as biased - this is what I would call a balanced approach to a debate. That is, not giving anyone the impression that my opinions are gospel.

I have to make it clear that you resort to poor dialectical tricks (sensationalism and deliberate manipulation of the text in this case), and perfectly transparent to the average NSGer to boot.
What is the reason for that? Poor arguments? Or maybe you got aroused at the thought that this time isn't the USA who's been called a torturer?

I - and I bet most of the people who posted in this thread - were in for an interesting and serious debate.

Umm they are not you know, they are in fact there to be rehabilitated.

The italian Constitution states that the detention should be used not as punishment but as rehabilitation... still, noble words on a noble paper are a thing, reality is another, expecially in this case. I don't think that the 41.bis detainees are getting rehabilitated very much. Still, it's working as an anti-mafia tool.

The italian Constitution states that the detention should be used not as punishment but as rehabilitation... still, noble words on a noble paper are a thing, reality is another, expecially in this case. I don't think that the 41.bis detainees are getting rehabilitated very much. Still, it's working as an anti-mafia tool.

Which is the point I am making I guess, one that Call To Power seems to have overlooked and mistaken for a rant!:D

The majority of 'law abiding citersens' do not realise that the prison system(at least in my country the UK) is not meant as punishment, but as rehabilitation, also the same citersens would like to see prison be a punishment.

I too have declared my biases so don't be surprised if you see some 'hangem' type posts from me on this tread.

Rehabilitation was thought up later on, when people discovered that no matter how harsh the punishment, it does not work as deterrent.

its more of a cycle, when people get civilized enough to think about actually solving crime a new form of media becomes available causing claims of "crime epidemics!"

its nice to know that pre-printing press villagers where starting to think about things your regular Joe has such a difficulty grasping :(

yes, it's also to prevent that.

hear that folks! suicide attempts can be ignored now! (which makes me wonder just how many attempts are actually made)

there is no physical torture of detainees once they have been tried.

it would be nice if you could prove such at thing unfortunately unless one of the guards takes pictures all we have is a half dead cat

:rolleyes:No. I'm biased against them because I know that the mafia is dangerous for the health of our country

um...kay

because of my worries, I can be biased to the point of not being able to judge whether a measure taken against the mafiosi is too harsh.

and as such bias exists you can also be thankful that you at least know your not being rational :)

With the 41.bis, many "families" have been metaphorically "beheaded", and it has led to the arrest of many infamous and powerful bosses, like Riina or Provenzano.

which makes it okay?

"oh look that yob is doing graffiti lets kill him to solve the problem!"

also have you ever considered the snake might actually be a Hydra and thus swinging away aimlessly might not be the solution?

That was made because many lawyers actually misused their role, carrying back and forth orders and info for the jailed bosses.

which is far worse than denying someone the right to a lawyer

Of course not all bias is bad. I'm biased against, racists, child molesters, and rapists myself, and I find these biases do not harm my or my life at all.:D

lets hope you never actually get in the position where you have to help these people then

of course I presume you also have a bias against witches because that clearly runs under the same though pattern

I can understand that once you've detained a mafia boss, you want to make sure the decapitation of the organisation is successful by restricting contact with the outside world. I don't see any way round that (as a liberal policeman, who has strong sympathies on both sides of the argument.)

On the other hand, some of it seems unnecessarily harsh and inhumane: if they're being monitored 24/7, and all communication is intercepted, then I don't see the added security advantage of solitary confinement - two mafia bosses sitting in a cell together for 30 years are no more dangerous to the outside world than if they were sitting in neighbouring cells cut off from each other.

As with terrorism, it's a hollow victory if you can only win by sinking to the level of your enemy.

No, this is not torture by any means, and I say that as one of the louder and more vehement denouncers of torture around here.

If I were in charge, I would increase the outside activity from 1 hour/day to 2 hours/day, just because it will make for a healthier inmate, and healthy inmates are cheaper to care for than sickly inmates.

I might also allow -- or, actually, require them to do some kind of productive work within the prison itself -- inside their cell or in a specially designated work room for solitary confinement inmates. This is my concession to the American puritanical work ethic notion that "the devil makes work for idle hands." It is not strictly necessary.

Finally, as an American, I do not like the idea of no private meetings with their own lawyers, but I will not try to impose US law on Italy.

EDIT: I should add that I would also include some kind of rehabilitation program, some therapeutic kind of thing, even for lifers. The reason is that controlled social interaction of a positive kind is infinitely preferable to no social interaction at all, which will only harm the inmate.

However, I disagree with the idea that this kind of treatment could be called torture.

EDIT: Also, finally, I think US courts have got a lot of goddamned nerve to chime in on this issue, and that Italy would be within their rights to tell my country's courts to blow it out the other end, considering how we treat our prisoners over here. US prisons are nightmarish shambles of a dystopian hellscape, and any nation that still has GITMO up and running should just shut the hell up about other countries' prisons.


I agree here. Although, I'd like to know if not meeting with their lawyers would otherwise be a violation of Italian law. In other words, do they normally restrict access to lawyers? I would think not, but I know nothing of the Italian legal system.

lets hope you never actually get in the position where you have to help these people then

of course I presume you also have a bias against witches because that clearly runs under the same though pattern

I find it very funny indeed that you presume much about me from the few words of mine that you have read. I clearly don't wish to be involved with crime and punishment as I hold certain biases, which make me unsuitable to the job.

As to witches, well I used to be one, but all of that fluffy-bunnyness just started to piss me right off so I left, but each to their own I guess, 'An it harm none...' and all that malarkey!:D

of course I presume you also have a bias against witches because that clearly runs under the same though pattern


How is it the same pattern as bias against child molesters? Does being a witch hurt other people?

You may not be able to perceive the difference in thought pattern, but there really is a difference between "biased against people who harm innocent children for the sheer pleasure of it" and "people who practice a certain religion". Yes, I know, it's a really subtle difference, how could anyone be expected to differentiate the two, but trust me, it's there.

its more of a cycle, when people get civilized enough to think about actually solving crime a new form of media becomes available causing claims of "crime epidemics!"

:confused: Are you able to read what I wrote, or it is another attempt at sensationalism?
Suicide in italian jails happens. It has NEVER happened to 41.bis detainees, because of the extra measures taken.
Most suicides in italian jails are due to depression, because of poor detention condition, expecially OVERCROWDING (example, the S.Vittore jail in Milan was rebuilt to allow no more than 800 inmates - and currently holds more than 2500: that is, cells thought for 2 people are being used by 6!).


it would be nice if you could prove such at thing unfortunately unless one of the guards takes pictures all we have is a half dead cat

Since when beatings happens, we have extensive reports from:
PMs - they are allowed to enter ANY jail (including jails with 41.bis detainees) without calling the director before: they can just show up and enter
journalists - check the huge amount of reports of police brutality at the G8 in Genoa, and 2 trials going on about that!
...
yes, I'm fairly confident that people under 41.bis don't get beaten.


and as such bias exists you can also be thankful that you at least know your not being rational :)

I AM BEING RATIONAL. I analyse and accept the fact that I can be biased, and warn my listeners.


"oh look that yob is doing graffiti lets kill him to solve the problem!"

:rolleyes:...please... less sensationalism.
Graffiti<<Mafia.
41.Bis<<Killing.
Everyone with a grain of salt in his own head can see that.


also have you ever considered the snake might actually be a Hydra and thus swinging away aimlessly might not be the solution?

41.bis isn't exactly "swinging away aimlessly". Before people are considered "mafia bosses" or "terrorist leaders" there is a huge amount of investigation, trials (three degrees! ordinary, appeal, eventually cassazione and second appeal) before a sentence can get executive!

of course I presume you also have a bias against witches because that clearly runs under the same though pattern
Your assumption, of course, doesn't make it a reality.

As with terrorism, it's a hollow victory if you can only win by sinking to the level of your enemy.

Given the choice, a hollow victory is infinitely preferable to total defeat, especially when your opponent would like to kill you.

You can always fix up the hollow victory later.

And just what is so "rational" about assuming that people who've risen to the top in Mafia families could be rehabilitated?

because despite numerous studies in biology it appears criminals happen to be homo-sapien and thus just like you and me

shocking how ideas like "evil" can't be applied to life in general

Me? It would not effect me much at all

I suggest you seek medical advice then as it appears you may suffer from social issues then

You do know that we are not all the same huh?

I'm intrigued by this please go further

Heh you found that to be ranty? Really? Ohh and source?

spouting off usually gets called that yes

source (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2106/1806789049_ec353098df_o.jpg)

perhaps someone has fallen into the reported crime numbers trap

Go read a few books and you'll find that the Victorians tried to reform prison to one of a system of rehabilitation.

...true or false the Victorian era covers the reign of Queen Victoria

The idea was that long periods of time spent on your own, would naturally turn the mind inward and you would reflect upon the mistakes you had made, and how you had wronged society.

I've already covered this but yes that was the churches idea hence why they also got a bible to read (which was odd in a age when literacy was still fairly poor)

I'm sorry if you mistook my words for a rant, I only wished to point out how the ideal behind the Victorian prison reforms has not worked.

well though its not Victorian no it didn't hence why the 7 days of thinking about what you had done was quickly abolished

Please, underline the parts of the OP where I said that "we can do what we want to the mafiosi".

...is this torture? Is this an infringement of human rights? I don't think so, but I can be quite biased against the mafiosi.

considering your turning a blind eye to real psychological harm I would say so

That is, not giving anyone the impression that my opinions are gospel.

letting irrational people make decisions makes perfect sense?

perfectly transparent to the average NSGer to boot.

I have my doubts...

would you like a napkin for that foam?

What is the reason for that? Poor arguments? Or maybe you got aroused at the thought that this time isn't the USA who's been called a torturer?

1) poor arguments is the majority opinion on what counts as genuine psychological harm?

2) I'm not American and usually relish at the chance to poke at the universal toy so I'd say no however its fun that you somehow think I'm out to pin torture on everything non-American

I - and I bet most of the people who posted in this thread - were in for an interesting and serious debate.

odd did I do something wrong when I disagreed with you?

Although, I'd like to know if not meeting with their lawyers would otherwise be a violation of Italian law. In other words, do they normally restrict access to lawyers? I would think not, but I know nothing of the Italian legal system.

In Italy, meeting with the lawyers when you're investigated, or under trial, is a right, and it cannot be denied.
The only exception is the first 24 hours after the so-called "fermo di polizia", but anyway before the arrest. I cannot translate "fermo di polizia" (literally it would be a "police blocking") properly into english, so I'll explain:
Let's say a policeman sees a burglar breaking into an home. He cannot "arrest" him, because, under italian law, the "arrest" must be ordered by a prosecutor. So the policeman uses the "fermo di polizia": he is allowed to take forcibily the burglar to the nearest police station, then he has to notify that to a prosecutor within 24 hours: then, the prosecutor, if he thinks that the person taken into custory was committing a crime, issues the order of arrest because of a specific crime (burglary and breaking in this case), and orders the police to begin the investigation. At the same time, the burglar gets the notice of arrest, and he MUST contact a lawyer (either one of his own choosing, if he knows one, or a lawyer provided by the State).

"41.bis" alters the standard methods of talking with the lawyers (because of the risk of mafia connections of those lawyers, as I said before).

He cannot "arrest" him, because, under italian law, the "arrest" must be ordered by a prosecutor. So the policeman uses the "fermo di polizia": he is allowed to take forcibily the burglar to the nearest police station, then he has to notify that to a prosecutor within 24 hours: then, the prosecutor, if he thinks that the person taken into custory was committing a crime, issues the order of arrest because of a specific crime (burglary and breaking in this case), and orders the police to begin the investigation. At the same time, the burglar gets the notice of arrest, and he MUST contact a lawyer (either one of his own choosing, if he knows one, or a lawyer provided by the State).


For purposes of clarity in conversation, then, your "fermo di polizia" corresponds to what we call arrest, and what you call arrest, we would call "indictment".

Quote:
Please, underline the parts of the OP where I said that "we can do what we want to the mafiosi".

Quote:
...is this torture? Is this an infringement of human rights? I don't think so, but I can be quite biased against the mafiosi.

considering your turning a blind eye to real psychological harm I would say so


Still I see that you confirmed what I said. You aren't unable to find a place where I said "we can do what we want to the mafiosi". You deliberately manipulated what I wrote to make it sound the way you wanted. Poor dialectics, very poor. It may work when talking. It cannot work on written texts, because scripta manent.

For purposes of clarity in conversation, then, your "fermo di polizia" corresponds to what we call arrest, and what you call arrest, we would call "indictment".

Uh... ok.
Maybe a small difference, again:
the order of "arrest" can be issued even against people who aren't currently in custody of the police. Let's say that the prosecutor is reasonabily sure that Mr.X has committed the crime Y, and fears that he could escape, or repeat said crime, or generally endanger the society by remaining free: then he issues the order of arrest to the police. That is, the police has to find Mr.X, notify him that he's being investigated for suspect of crime Y by the prosecutor, then take him in jail to wait for the end of investigation, and eventually the trial.

because despite numerous studies in biology it appears criminals happen to be homo-sapien and thus just like you and me

shocking how ideas like "evil" can't be applied to life in general

And where did I use the term "evil"?

Look, these aren't just Victorian teenage pickpockets, or people seized off of the street, these are people who have deliberately chosen to do whatever it took to get to the top in organised criminal groups. They'll probably have committed at least one murder each in their time (Are you aware of the 'made man' concept?), they'll have ordered other murders, and they'll have been responsible for running all sorts of other criminal rackets...
Do you seriously think that, when they've done all of that -- and enjoyed the money & power involved -- they could be "rehabilitated" into harmless citizens?

I suggest you seek medical advice then as it appears you may suffer from social issues then

Not at all I'm fine interacting with people, as the many friends I have will testify, I'm also fine spending time by myself.

I'm intrigued by this please go further

Sorry? You want me to show you how we are different, how many, many people are not the same? Surely the mere fact that we are doing this is indicative of some of the differences between us, no?


spouting off usually gets called that yes

Here is my original post:

Naaa that ain't torture. Infringements on a persons rights perhaps, but then they are criminals so fuck it.

Seriously though, we do need to sort out out crime and punishment. It seems to me that the Victorian idea of prison being a rehabilitation just does not work, and it also seems obvious that the majority of people would like to see prison as a punishment, which at this moment is not what it's aim is.

So either find a way of rehabilitation that works, or make prison a punishment.

Was it the fuckit remark? If so again I have declared some of my biases, so indeed fuckit. Other than that I really can't see where I have ranted or spouted off.


...true or false the Victorian era covers the reign of Queen Victoria

*sigh* Just not getting it are you. The point I made, and one that I think is made clearly, was that our prison system as it stands, is one that was envisaged in the Victorian era, it is one that still holds to the idea of rehabilitation as envisaged at this time, and it is one that is not working.

Just to clarify for you my whole point was simply this, and that we need to re-think this strategy. Now do you still call that ranty, or will you admit to having misunderstood my words?

That was made because many lawyers actually misused their role, carrying back and forth orders and info for the jailed bosses.

I realize. But its efficacy does not make it legitimate.

perhaps we should lock you all in a small room and see if the lack of social contact affects you

Probably pretty badly. It's still not torture.

Look, there are lots of really awful circumstances I can imagine. Fuck, being in a cell for a prolonged period of time would probably drive me crazy in and of itself. (As it happens, I'm not exactly a very enthusiastic supporter of the prison system.) But awfulness in and of itself doesn't make it torture.

Recently, both US and EU judiciary courts have claimed that the so-called "detention under article 41.bis" (by the italian codes of laws) is torture - or however an infringement of the human rights of the detainee.

The "41.bis" is a regime of "harsh" detention, applied to the most perilous inmates (usually sentenced to life in jail or to the newly-instated maximum, that is 30 years). It is used mostly against mafia leaders (like Salvatore "Totò" Riina of the Corleonesi clan) and terrorists (like members of the Red Brigades).

The harshness means:
-no contacts with other detainees.
-no telephone, snail mail only and always through censorship (both incoming and outgoing).
-isolation cell 23h/day, plus 1 h in the open air alone. Continuous watch via CC-TV.
-1 visit of 1 relative each month, no physical contact allowed (although in Naples happened that the wife of a boss detained under 41.bis got pregnant during one of such visits... talk about security)
-no working-while-in-detention programs, or semiliberty or permits etc. . The detainee is allowed to get books from the internal library, or to watch television in his own cell.
-lawyers can talk with the detainee only while a guard is present, and talks can be recorded (audio/video).

The 41.bis detention has been proved very successful, expecially against mafiosi, because it effectly cuts away the mafia bosses from their organisations - thus avoiding what happened before its introduction, that is, the bosses were able to run their "bisniss" even from the jail.

...is this torture? Is this an infringement of human rights? I don't think so, but I can be quite biased against the mafiosi.

(poll coming)

...I'm no expert, but I don't consider it to be TORTURE.

I realize. But its efficacy does not make it legitimate.

Yes, that's the main issue, even if we agree that the 41.bis isn't torture (and some of us don't).

I find it very funny indeed that you presume much about me from the few words of mine that you have read. I clearly don't wish to be involved with crime and punishment as I hold certain biases, which make me unsuitable to the job.

I was trying to do that "oh you should feel so bad" angles but I guess its been lost I guess I will avoid the thread hijacking though

You may not be able to perceive the difference in thought pattern, but there really is a difference between "biased against people who harm innocent children for the sheer pleasure of it" and "people who practice a certain religion". Yes, I know, it's a really subtle difference, how could anyone be expected to differentiate the two, but trust me, it's there.

actually witches where perceived to be a very real threat back in the day and just like pedophiles and rapists happen to be over hyped fears by society (just look at how crime of pedophilia used to be regarded as to now)

as shown by the ignorant mobs that roamed Britain a few years ago (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm)

It has NEVER happened to 41.bis detainees, because of the extra measures taken.

though I think you have taken the wrong quote a suicide prevented is just as bad as a success as both highlight a very serious issue where an individual finds it better to end there life than go on

yes, I'm fairly confident that people under 41.bis don't get beaten.

I think your missing my point which is that when prisoners have no way to report any abuse themselves it comes rather down to trusting PM's which is something I'd rather not run on

I AM BEING RATIONAL. I analyse and accept the fact that I can be biased, and warn my listeners.

bi·as (bī'əs) pronunciation
n.

1. A line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias.
2.
1. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
2. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.
4. Sports.
1. A weight or irregularity in a ball that causes it to swerve, as in lawn bowling.
2. The tendency of such a ball to swerve.
5. The fixed voltage applied to an electrode.

I think that more or less shows how rational and bias tend not to go hand in hand

:rolleyes:...please... less sensationalism.
Graffiti<<Mafia.
41.Bis<<Killing.
Everyone with a grain of salt in his own head can see that.

I'm just trying to give you some sort of perspective here, do you think being heavy handed on criminals is actually a viable method to take?

41.bis isn't exactly "swinging away aimlessly". Before people are considered "mafia bosses" or "terrorist leaders" there is a huge amount of investigation, trials (three degrees! ordinary, appeal, eventually cassazione and second appeal) before a sentence can get executive!

so you think just jailing mafia bosses solves anything beyond completely ignoring the cause of a mafia existing?

its simple really the mafia will exist as long as he Mafia can exist invisible hand of the market and all that jazz

Your assumption, of course, doesn't make it a reality.

I wouldn't say that they seem to have allot in common with such instances as the Salem witch trials

While I can't see it being all that good for someone's mental health, if it is truly the only thing short of execution to stop mafioso leaders from running things behind the scenes, it may be a necessity.

I'm, of course, playing devil's advocate. I fully support the Mafia in all its forms.

Not torture. Other than the lack of private meetings w/ lawyers, this is typical "solitary confinement" in the US.

Risottia, do you know which US courts have ruled against this treatment? In matters of treating prisoners, the states have a fair amount of flexibility to make their own decisions, unless the Federal courts have issued a ruling saying they can't.

I don't know if I would consider it torture, however, I would consider it a necessary set of measures.
At what point does something become torture? Depending on how you define the limits, regular prison sentences are torture.

Still I see that you confirmed what I said. You aren't unable to find a place where I said "we can do what we want to the mafiosi". You deliberately manipulated what I wrote to make it sound the way you wanted. Poor dialectics, very poor. It may work when talking. It cannot work on written texts, because scripta manent.

I should think this whole charade of trying to justify torturing members of the mafia pretty much shows this

tell me is there anything that you wouldn't be fine with having applied to the mafia I'm just curious

And where did I use the term "evil"?

I think And just what is so "rational" about assuming that people who've risen to the top in Mafia families could be rehabilitated? would come under claiming evil* not that you used the term which I never implied oddly

*it shall be interesting to hear what you think of this actually

Do you seriously think that, when they've done all of that -- and enjoyed the money & power involved -- they could be "rehabilitated" into harmless citizens?

they are human beings who most likely suffer from extreme sociopathy deep down they are just like you and me and thus its pretty clear that something went horribly wrong

of course you are also trying to give me some sort of absolute generalization here just writing people off as unhelpable isn't what society does

Not at all I'm fine interacting with people, as the many friends I have will testify, I'm also fine spending time by myself.

the importance is though can you just spend time completely by yourself (without NS, MSN etc) for days at a time?

surely not because that has never sat well with social animals

Sorry? You want me to show you how we are different, how many, many people are not the same? Surely the mere fact that we are doing this is indicative of some of the differences between us, no?

some is key though neither of us can defy nature or the way are brains are programmed after all there won't be that much difference between your or my brain and a serial killers (presuming no mental illness of course) beyond the odd ability level

so it all comes down to something going disastrously wrong with the serial killers life surely?

Here is my original post:

Was it the fuckit remark? If so again I have declared some of my biases, so indeed fuckit. Other than that I really can't see where I have ranted or spouted off.

ugh this is becoming a fad

the fact that it is a large block of words is a dead giveaway of a rant surely?

*sigh* Just not getting it are you. The point I made, and one that I think is made clearly, was that our prison system as it stands, is one that was envisaged in the Victorian era, it is one that still holds to the idea of rehabilitation as envisaged at this time, and it is one that is not working.

and what I'm trying to have you get at is this was not envisioned during the reign of Victoria its rather a cycle of pendulum swinging from hard to soft

and during her Majesties reign it was stuck in harsh with the advent of the tabloid but yeah this is going nowhere

Just to clarify for you my whole point was simply this, and that we need to re-think this strategy.

however you have yet to show how rehabilitation hasn't been working, tell me do I have to get the crime rate graphs out again?

Now do you still call that ranty, or will you admit to having misunderstood my words?

you summed up that whole post with this:

Just to clarify for you my whole point was simply this, and that we need to re-think this strategy.

so yes it was a tad ranty surely?

Probably pretty badly. It's still not torture.

so whats the difference between the deprivation of social contact as opposed to the deprivation of say sleep?

But awfulness in and of itself doesn't make it torture.

however causing agony especially to the point where suicide becomes a viable concern does usually denote living in torturous conditions

they are human beings who most likely suffer from extreme sociopathy deep down they are just like you and me and thus its pretty clear that something went horribly wrong


Alright, that statement is so ridiculous that I feel the need to respond.

Are you claiming that everyone who commits a crime, a dozen crimes, or is the head of an organized group that commits thousands of crimes against humanity is simply suffering from a psychological disorder?

This is good to know.

Next time I rationally choose to do something that will benefit me at the cost of another person's life/property, I will just plead insanity. Since clearly, someone can not transgress the law without being insane or suffering a disorder.

Good day.

Alright, that statement is so ridiculous that I feel the need to respond.

Are you claiming that everyone who commits a crime, a dozen crimes, or is the head of an organized group that commits thousands of crimes against humanity is simply suffering from a psychological disorder?

This is good to know.

no I'm saying that people become criminals for a reason Mafia bosses (as was what was mentioned nice to see you miss that part) are rather extreme cases which I suggested could be connected to a case of sociopathy

now would you like to offer some kind of counter opinion? fairy's maybe?

Next time I rationally choose to do something that will benefit me at the cost of another person's life/property, I will just plead insanity. Since clearly, someone can not transgress the law without being insane or suffering a disorder.

actually the law has been written (or at least is usually) in a way that ordinary people typically won't commit crimes (because that would be rather unenforceable as shown by Internet piracy)

so yes if you just hacked someone to death it may be time to ponder if you might be slightly out of the ordinary :)

Good day.

why do you say such things when your clearly coming back?

so whats the difference between the deprivation of social contact as opposed to the deprivation of say sleep?

One's an absolute physical need. The other isn't.

no I'm saying that people become criminals for a reason Mafia bosses (as was what was mentioned nice to see you miss that part) are rather extreme cases which I suggested could be connected to a case of sociopathy

I did not miss the part about the mafia, and was in fact, mainly referring to the mafia bosses. That is, after all, the example from the OP.
or is the head of an organized group that commits thousands of crimes against humanity

now would you like to offer some kind of counter opinion? fairy's maybe?

Eh?

actually the law has been written (or at least is usually) in a way that ordinary people typically won't commit crimes (because that would be rather unenforceable as shown by Internet piracy)
What do you mean?
The law is written so it manipulates people's thought patterns by setting consequences for actions which in turn coerces individuals into following what is written?

so yes if you just hacked someone to death it may be time to ponder if you might be slightly out of the ordinary :)
People kill people all the time, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a mental disorder.

why do you say such things when your clearly coming back?
I hate saying farewell.
I use 'Good day' primarily as a greeting.

One's an absolute physical need. The other isn't.

as I have mentioned before with the example of the cat lady, humans do need regular contact with other humans we just break otherwise

I did not miss the part about the mafia, and was in fact, mainly referring to the mafia bosses. That is, after all, the example from the OP.

Eh?

missed that part but point still stands, do you think that there is any reason beyond the psychological that a mafia boos would kill without remorse or thought?


What do you mean?
The law is written so it manipulates people's thought patterns by setting consequences for actions which in turn coerces individuals into following what is written?

pfft so what your saying is lawmakers try to influence fundamental human nature?

do you think its fear of consequences that the law is primarily based on?

People kill people all the time, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a mental disorder.

the reasons behind killing is why we have separate punishments for cases such as manslaughter which is a crime of nature (or rather passion)

normally people don't go out and kill its not in our nature thankfully

as I have mentioned before with the example of the cat lady, humans do need regular contact with other humans we just break otherwise

I agree to an extent. Humans are social creatures.

missed that part but point still stands, do you think that there is any reason beyond the psychological that a mafia boos would kill without remorse or thought?

Who said it was without remorse or thought?


pfft so what your saying is lawmakers try to influence fundamental human nature?
do you think its fear of consequences that the law is primarily based on?

I wasn't stating anything, hence the question marks. I was trying to figure out what the heck you meant.

the reasons behind killing is why we have separate punishments for cases such as manslaughter which is a crime of nature (or rather passion)

Okay?

normally people don't go out and kill its not in our nature thankfully

Competition and selfish desires are however. Sometimes killing is a means to an end.

No, it isn't torture in the slightest. And if it drives serial killers and rapists to depression, then I couldn't really give a shit.

They have a library and television. p.p

No, I don't think this is.

I agree to an extent. Humans are social creatures.

and much like chimpanzees when we are kept in isolated conditions we break and find it unbearable

Who said it was without remorse or thought?

*shrug* thats generally how mafia bosses work

Competition and selfish desires are however. Sometimes killing is a means to an end.

however humans rarely resort to such actions which is why its such an issue when someone goes out to explicitly kill as opposed to it just ended up occurring

perhaps we should lock you all in a small room and see if the lack of social contact affects you

<snip>
Why are you assuming they are being locked into a box and denied all human contact of any kind whatsoever? Solitary confinement has existed for hundreds of years and varies from actual torture (like what was done to Elizabeth Bathory, the so-called Blood Countess of Hungary), to protective custody to save high profile inmates from being abused/murdered by other prisoners. There are cases in modern prisons of convicts preferring solitary for that latter reason.

The fact is solitary confinement is not really solitary in non-torturing prisons. It refers to confinement without a cellmate and on a schedule that is different from the general population's, but the inmate still has the company of prison staff, therapists, religious/spiritual advisors, lawyers, etc., as well as books and television, as well as the ability to soften their environment with personal items and small comforts.

The only part of solitary confinement that I consider inherently cruel is the use of small cells. Some countries do that, and some don't. I believe that solitary confinement should be in a cell that has sufficient space for the physical and psychological comfort of a human being.

It's harsh but torture? Nahh.

Now if we pipe in Celine Dion music!....

Recently, both US and EU judiciary courts have claimed that the so-called "detention under article 41.bis" (by the italian codes of laws) is torture - or however an infringement of the human rights of the detainee.

The "41.bis" is a regime of "harsh" detention, applied to the most perilous inmates (usually sentenced to life in jail or to the newly-instated maximum, that is 30 years). It is used mostly against mafia leaders (like Salvatore "Totò" Riina of the Corleonesi clan) and terrorists (like members of the Red Brigades).

The harshness means:
-no contacts with other detainees.
-no telephone, snail mail only and always through censorship (both incoming and outgoing).
-isolation cell 23h/day, plus 1 h in the open air alone. Continuous watch via CC-TV.
-1 visit of 1 relative each month, no physical contact allowed (although in Naples happened that the wife of a boss detained under 41.bis got pregnant during one of such visits... talk about security)
-no working-while-in-detention programs, or semiliberty or permits etc. . The detainee is allowed to get books from the internal library, or to watch television in his own cell.
-lawyers can talk with the detainee only while a guard is present, and talks can be recorded (audio/video).

The 41.bis detention has been proved very successful, expecially against mafiosi, because it effectly cuts away the mafia bosses from their organisations - thus avoiding what happened before its introduction, that is, the bosses were able to run their "bisniss" even from the jail.

...is this torture? Is this an infringement of human rights? I don't think so, but I can be quite biased against the mafiosi.

(poll coming)

I wish the US didn't see this as torture, if we did this for gang leaders in America than our gang problems wouldn't be as bad as they are now. *sigh* They ever allow them to become troops as long as they are not "active" members and that is judged by the recuiter, so of coruse they end up not being "active" even when they have tattos showing they are high members of the gang.

So wait a minute now...


The US sees this as torture, but waterboading is a-ok?:headbang:


Its harsh, and I dont agree with it (especially no private meetings with lawyers) but Id be hard pressed to call it torture.

I wish the US didn't see this as torture, if we did this for gang leaders in America than our gang problems wouldn't be as bad as they are now. *sigh* They ever allow them to become troops as long as they are not "active" members and that is judged by the recuiter, so of coruse they end up not being "active" even when they have tattos showing they are high members of the gang.

Au contraire, this "41.bis" is exactly the sort of treatment that the Aryan Brotherhood leaders got when some of them were (finally) convicted. More extreme, even -- I think there's a guy somewhere in the system who isn't allowed any visitors ever besides his attorney, CCTV on him 24/7, no interaction with other prisoners, etc. So I'm surprised that a US court has ruled 41.bis as torture.

I'm not doubting you, Risottia, I'd just like to see your source, and I haven't found it. (Probably 'cause I can't read Italian.)

Call-To-Power:
You should read "Cosa Nostra - a history of the Sicilian Mafia" by John Dickie. It would give you a big insight into why this law was brought in and why it still exists to this day.

(like members of the Red Brigades).

'Terrorist' is a term only the ruling state uses, I personally consider the RB to be revolutionary freedom fighters.

*sigh* Just not getting it are you. The point I made, and one that I think is made clearly, was that our prison system as it stands, is one that was envisaged in the Victorian era, it is one that still holds to the idea of rehabilitation as envisaged at this time, and it is one that is not working.


You are right on one point, the concept of rehabilitation was put forward by the Victorians. They didn't do it very well (they just thought that if you gave people work it would help, it didn't), but they had the ideals.

You're statement that it's not working is objectively false however. The concept that 'nothing works' in rehabilitation dates back to the 70s, where after reviewing all the rehabilitation programs in place, a study was published citing that "as of yet, nothing works to reduce offending". He retracted this statement a year later as more in depth statistical reviews indicated that some things do work. Just using prison as a punishment will generally increase reoffending by up to 10% (sometimes more), well developed, researched and applied rehabilitation programs (and a lot do exist with more being researched daily) can reduce it by up to 30%. That's 3 out of 10 people who would have committed another crime without any intervention who don't.

The idea that rehabilitation fails and punishment works is one of the biggest lies our tabloids have been spreading.

the importance is though can you just spend time completely by yourself (without NS, MSN etc) for days at a time?

surely not because that has never sat well with social animals

Yep of course I can, I have already said so twice now. If you just don't believe me then, meh what can I do.


some is key though neither of us can defy nature or the way are brains are programmed after all there won't be that much difference between your or my brain and a serial killers (presuming no mental illness of course) beyond the odd ability level

Again meh. That is irrelevant, I said nowt about the scale of differences amongst people only that 'we are not all the same' I smell a smoke screen. Why is it so hard for some people to just be honest and say 'Ohh yeah sorry I misunderstood you'?


ugh this is becoming a fad

the fact that it is a large block of words is a dead giveaway of a rant surely?

So you have not pointed out which of my words made you think I was ranting, and instead you are saying that any time somebody writes a big block of text it is to be considered a rant? Ignoring for a while here that it was only about three lines.


and what I'm trying to have you get at is this was not envisioned during the reign of Victoria its rather a cycle of pendulum swinging from hard to soft

No you have not attempted that at all. All of your posts to me have only been concerned with telling me what a ranting fool I am, and how wrong my assertions are, so obviously I feel I need defend myself against such things. As to the Victorians changing the prison service, as I say pick up a history book.


however you have yet to show how rehabilitation hasn't been working, tell me do I have to get the crime rate graphs out again?

I do not need to show what is so obvious. You say that crime is on the decrease, yet I speak as a resident of the UK where we are running out of prison space and revidisicm is rife.


you summed up that whole post with this:

so yes it was a tad ranty surely?


So in your mind simply saying 'We need to re-think this strategy' is a rant? Amazing, and you'll no doubt still say that there are no differences between us?

I do not need to show what is so obvious. You say that crime is on the decrease, yet I speak as a resident of the UK where we are running out of prison space and revidisicm is rife.


I'm sorry, I'm going to shock you here. Crime has decrease by about 40% since 1995, as measured by the British Crime Survey, a victim survey, and as such not biased by issues such as crime reporting rates. And I even have a link for you:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf

You won't be surprised to find out that reporting of crime in the press has increased significantly in the same time period (can't remember the exact statistic) as has the public perception of crime.

Both the prison and probation service show a reduction in recidivism on all sentence types between 5-12%, with the exception of prison sentences between 3-6months (no change) and under 3 months (about a 10% increase). Why? Because under 3 months they have no chance of doing any sort of rehabilitation.

You are right on one point, the concept of rehabilitation was put forward by the Victorians. They didn't do it very well (they just thought that if you gave people work it would help, it didn't), but they had the ideals.

You're statement that it's not working is objectively false however. The concept that 'nothing works' in rehabilitation dates back to the 70s, where after reviewing all the rehabilitation programs in place, a study was published citing that "as of yet, nothing works to reduce offending". He retracted this statement a year later as more in depth statistical reviews indicated that some things do work. Just using prison as a punishment will generally increase reoffending by up to 10% (sometimes more), well developed, researched and applied rehabilitation programs (and a lot do exist with more being researched daily) can reduce it by up to 30%. That's 3 out of 10 people who would have committed another crime without any intervention who don't.

The idea that rehabilitation fails and punishment works is one of the biggest lies our tabloids have been spreading.

Well thanks for your vote of confidence. Just to clarify I have not said that punishment works, I did say that we need to re-think the whole sphere of what prison is for.

Yes of course some offenders do not re-offend after prison, yet many, many do. As I have said elsewher, we in the UK have run out of prison space. The prison system we have that is still based around these ideas brought about in the Victorian era, is on the whole not working. Working would be to my mind, at least a 90% cut in recidivist rates, truly working would be 100%

Now I do have some sense of realism, and would say that a 100% crime free society is not going to happen. Also I would point out that for many people (not criminals) their view of what prison is, is wrong, it is not meant to be a punishment. I have not yet expressed an opinion that it should be, I only highlight what the 'average man in the street' says.

I'm not doubting you, Risottia, I'd just like to see your source, and I haven't found it. (Probably 'cause I can't read Italian.)

Eh, it's an endless debate here in Italy (at least 10 years going on). Sources can be found on the websites of all major italian dailies - but I'm afraid they're all in italian. (www.corriere.it, www.repubblica.it). Maybe something can be found at the website of the Strasbourg European Court for Human Rights.

some things I just googled out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_41-bis_prison_regime
http://www.mafia-news.com/suspected-mob-figure-wont-be-returned-to-italy/
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9973621_ITM
http://www.osce.org/item/26256.html (html version of a pdf through googl)

I think a bigger problem is bogey men affecting ones opinion, Risottia has actually stated this as okay because after all its the mafiosi and thus we can do what we want



Did you read it that way? I thought what he was saying is that, unfortunate as it is, if it does help stop the mafia bosses running their operations even from behind bars, he's in favour of it.
As am I.

'Terrorist' is a term only the ruling state uses, I personally consider the RB to be revolutionary freedom fighters.

Terrorist is the term to describe anyone who uses terrorism to achieve ANY end.
To clarify, "terrorism" is any technique aimed at instilling fear into the general population, or large fractions thereof. WW2 air bombings against civilians are an example of terrorism, too.
We could argue whether the RB were revolutionary freedom fighters or (as I think) a bunch of useful idiots, manipulated by the italian secret services, with the approval of other NATO secret services, used to prevent the formation of the so-called "compromesso storico", that is, a coalition between the DC (italian Christian-Democrats), the PSI (italian Socialist Party) and the PCI (italian Communist Party).
Anyway, the fact that the Brigate Rosse used the technique called "terrorism" is a fact (and they targeted communist workers' union leaders, too, like poor Guido Rossa, q.v). They didn't place bombs to kill the maximum number of people, like the right-wing Ordine Nuovo terrorist organisation; the BR focused against journalists, university teachers, trade union's leaders and workers' union's leaders, politicians. That is, against the italian intelligencija as a class - hence, they were targeting a large and important fraction of the population. "Hit one to teach thousands", they liked to say, quoting from Mao's Red Book iirc.

i could live, almost happily, with what is described in the op, as could almost any hermit or crypto autist. as long as the detainee is actually left alone and not physically roughed up, or threatened with actual physical or psychological abuse, like being prevented from sleeping with loud music, harsh lights and so on, neither mentioned nor excluded in the discription, then no, i don't see how, mere isolation, itself, but with everyone concerned about the detainee's welfare able to verify it, and the detainee to verify that they are able to, is supposed to be any kind of torture.

where we get into torture, is when we begin to condone physical abuse, extreme forms of mental abuse, and of course, extreme physical abuse, none of which ever serve any USEFUL purpose.

waterboarding qualifies as extreme physical abuse, stress positions under threat of bludgeoning or other physical abuse, qualify as extreme abuse both mentally and physically, and of course sleep deprivation does so as well.

isolation is only abuse to those who already have extreme mental problems with being isolated. lack of sufficient isolation can be just as abusive to those who have just as much of a mental problem with that, which is what i WOULD feel in a general prison population. which fortunately i've never had the misfortune to face, nor ever wish to tempt the odds of having to. other then for a damd good cause, like opposing the wholesale abuse of any nation's population by warfare or of the environment everyone's existence depends upon.

=^^=
.../\...

Well thanks for your vote of confidence. Just to clarify I have not said that punishment works, I did say that we need to re-think the whole sphere of what prison is for.

Yes of course some offenders do not re-offend after prison, yet many, many do. As I have said elsewher, we in the UK have run out of prison space. The prison system we have that is still based around these ideas brought about in the Victorian era, is on the whole not working. Working would be to my mind, at least a 90% cut in recidivist rates, truly working would be 100%

Now I do have some sense of realism, and would say that a 100% crime free society is not going to happen. Also I would point out that for many people (not criminals) their view of what prison is, is wrong, it is not meant to be a punishment. I have not yet expressed an opinion that it should be, I only highlight what the 'average man in the street' says.

Yes, the UK has run out of prison space, part of this is an over-use of prison sentences, especially short sentences for minor offences (over half the prison population are on sentences under 6 months). The government has brought out a number of legislations to increase the use of community sentences and reduce the use of prison except where necessary, even before the space crisis came to a head (Criminal Justice Act 2005), but many members of the judiciary still over-use prison sentencing, in part due to gut reactions from press coverage of the 'rise in crime'. The principles of the prison system have been drastically, drastically changed since the Victorian era, hell since about 20 years ago.

90%-100% reduction in recidivism? Then the criminal justice system will NEVER work, irrespective of it's form, by that definition. Even a 30% reduction, achieved by the best forms of rehabilitation, is amazing considering what it's up against: social problems, unemployment, education issues (training is also a vital service performed by both the prison and probation service), labeling and stigmatisation, housing issues... the list goes on. Not to mention the ridiculously high level of mental illness present in our prison systems, including emotional/behavioural issues (depressing, personality disorders etc...), levels of schizophrenia (we're getting better at transferring these to mental institutions), mental retardation, learning difficulties...

It is unfortunate that the "average man on the street" still has the view that prison should be about retribution and punishment only. But that will take a lot to change and I can't see it changing any time soon. It's a perfectly natural gut reaction, someone hurts you, you want revenge. Unfortunately that just doesn't work, and if we're going to realistically reduce crime, we need to avoid that gut reaction and keep focusing on what will, in the long-run, help people.

I'm sorry, I'm going to shock you here. Crime has decrease by about 40% since 1995, as measured by the British Crime Survey, a victim survey, and as such not biased by issues such as crime reporting rates. And I even have a link for you:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf

You won't be surprised to find out that reporting of crime in the press has increased significantly in the same time period (can't remember the exact statistic) as has the public perception of crime.

Both the prison and probation service show a reduction in recidivism on all sentence types between 5-12%, with the exception of prison sentences between 3-6months (no change) and under 3 months (about a 10% increase). Why? Because under 3 months they have no chance of doing any sort of rehabilitation.

Ahhhhh I see, yes but this is still an ongoing argument with some quoting from one set of figures and others different. Lies, damnable lies, and statics huh.

I agree the much quoted 'fear of crime' is higher now than perhaps ten years ago, and that media reportage is out of control.

I am having trouble understanding how a victim survey has nothing to do with reporting crime though? Also how such a survey can be said to be unbiased? (infact are not all stats biased in some way)

Back to my main point though, if prison is working as mode of rehabilitation, why are we out of prison space? I wonder if we have any stats for population increase vs crime rate?

Can you show me long term stats from the Victorian era to today, and then cross reference that with similar stats for population over the same time period. I think that would give a truer measure would it not?

Sounds like an extreme case of getting grounded and sent to your room to think about what you've done! =P The only thing I disagree with is the lawyer bit; the prisoners should be allowed private meetings with them or at least meetings where they are able to speak freely. The lack of social contact would be rough, but this is prison not a daycare center. Plus they get TV and literature, which would keep them occupied. Harsh, but fair considering it is reserved for big crimes.

I have no sympathy for criminals. If you don't want to go to jail, then don't break the law.

Yes, the UK has run out of prison space, part of this is an over-use of prison sentences, especially short sentences for minor offences (over half the prison population are on sentences under 6 months).

That is a very good point.


It is unfortunate that the "average man on the street" still has the view that prison should be about retribution and punishment only. But that will take a lot to change and I can't see it changing any time soon. It's a perfectly natural gut reaction, someone hurts you, you want revenge. Unfortunately that just doesn't work, and if we're going to realistically reduce crime, we need to avoid that gut reaction and keep focusing on what will, in the long-run, help people.

Again though that is not what I said, I merely pointed out that many people believe that is what prison is. I really have no idea what they believe prison should be.

Ahhhhh I see, yes but this is still an ongoing argument with some quoting from one set of figures and others different. Lies, damnable lies, and statics huh.

I agree the much quoted 'fear of crime' is higher now than perhaps ten years ago, and that media reportage is out of control.

I am having trouble understanding how a victim survey has nothing to do with reporting crime though? Also how such a survey can be said to be unbiased? (infact are not all stats biased in some way)


Ok, nothing to do with reporting crime is an over-statement. What I refer to is that official police reported crime statistics is, as has been rightly pointed out, highly, highly biased for almost all crimes, for a variety of reasons, including crime types (vandalism is reported significantly less than assault, for example), reporting procedure, view of police etc... The British Crime Survey tries to avoid these biases by asking a representative sample of the population of their experiences as victims of all types of crimes. It has a high response rate (75% on this years), and since it is conducted anonymously by independent researchers, it is believed to get a more realistic picture of criminality, with people more likely to report experiences of crime even if they would not report it to the police, for whatever reason. It's not perfect, but it's probably the best measure of crime we're going to get.


Back to my main point though, if prison is working as mode of rehabilitation, why are we out of prison space? I wonder if we have any stats for population increase vs crime rate?


Most crime stats are given in relation to the total population (generally instances per 100,000), so population increase is almost certainly one factor. Although one of the main ones is a massive increased use of prison sentences, especially short ones (which are not helpful), with significantly more criminal offences resulting in prison sentences. Not to mention an increase in the number of actions considered criminal offences (seriously, the amount of 'new' crimes labour has introduced is staggering).


Can you show me long term stats from the Victorian era to today, and then cross reference that with similar stats for population over the same time period. I think that would give a truer measure would it not?


No I can't. Seriously, the statistics don't exist going back to the Victorian era, not in any meaningful sense. The book-keeping was considerably poorer then and a large number of records have been lost. Not to mention that direct comparison on a lot of crimes is invalid since recording practices has drastically changed (mostly for the better) over the past few decades let alone centuries. Possibly the only valid comparison would be murder rate, which is a crude, but relatively effect measure of overall violence in a society, and tends to be well reported/recorded. I'm sure someone's done it, but I frankly, don't have the time to look it up.

And since I am on a Pratchett quoting spree:

YOU HAVE PERHAPS HEARD THE PHRASE THAT HELL IS OTHER PEOPLE?
"Yes. Yes, of course."
Death nodded. IN TIME, he said, YOU WILL LEARN THAT IT IS WRONG.
{Small Gods, 1992}

Seems fitting. Maybe I should create a puppet nation that does this all the time.

<snip>..... I'm sure someone's done it, but I frankly, don't have the time to look it up.

Yeah me also, and to tell the truth I just can't be bothered right now. However you have made some good points, and in the fullness of time I may well drag up some stats.

You may be right, I may have to retract my statement that the rehabilitation system of prison is not working.

Yeah me also, and to tell the truth I just can't be bothered right now. However you have made some good points, and in the fullness of time I may well drag up some stats.

You may be right, I may have to retract my statement that the rehabilitation system of prison is not working.

I know I have seen some stats around somewhere, so they are out there. If you're interested in learning more about prison rehabilitiation, what works and what doesn't, I can recommend:J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending- Guidelines from research & practice. Chichester, Wiley. Although any introductory forensic psychology book will probably cover the research evidence quite thoroughly.

I went to a talk by the Director General of the prison service last year on this topic, it was a fascinating over-view of how the current prison service works in this country and why. It is very different from how it's generally portrayed in the media or in public opinion.