Now then, how about we have a nice little chat?
The new UK notion of how to deal with violent prison inmates: put them in a comfy room with curtains and leave the door open.
Coming soon to a country near you...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Buried at the end of the article is the news that this is a treatment applied to children in juvenile institutions. But don't let that stop you.
By the way, what "country near you" is this coming to? Do you have information not available to the rest of us? Or is this just another scare tactic from the right? Hmm, "scare tactic". Where have I heard that before?
@wally: you apparently missed this sentence:
It is understood the rooms will be introduced in most adult jails.
But don't let that stop you.
Yes, it's a scare tactic, much the same as describing Arizona's new immigration law as Nazi-like, but that hasn't stopped the Left, now has it?
I use UK as an example of what the US can expect if we allow extreme leftists to control the government. "Extreme leftists" I define to mean anyone to the left of me. (JOKE!)
"It is understood" is a phrase that reinforces my low opinion of British tabloids. No reputable American editor would let a sentence like that stand without attribution. You'll notice the statement I used was attributed to a spokeswoman for the Prison Service.
You'll also notice that I haven't referred to Arizona's immigration law as Nazi-like. If I do stoop to scare tactics, please call me on it.
@wally: you apparently have a higher opinion of "reputable American editors" than I do. Not surprising, since most of them are inclined in the same political direction as yourself.
My main point in posting the entry was not to quibble over whether the program will be extended to adults - - if Labour stays in power, it probably will, it's the sort of criminal justice stupidity that Labour is noted for = = but whether you feel that the program itself has merit or is a ridiculous, money-wasting boondoggle.
You'll note that I didn't accuse you directly of using the Nazi metaphors regarding the Arizona law; plenty on the Left have, however, and even some on the Right who should know better.
But doesn't it make any difference to you that the program is aimed primarily at youths, and in some cases, women? I myself can imagine that using tactics to calm down an out-of-control kid might be more productive than tasing him or whatever. As I have said before about the penal system, finding out what works is much more useful than adhering to a rigid political philosophy.
Oh, and I would never claim that newspaper editors on the opposite side of the political spectrum are disreputable or without journalistic ethics just because I disagree with them. I have probably known a few more of them than you, and I find them to be highly professional and serious about the rules of their profession, regardless of their political opinions.
@wally: I think my point is made by the example of Diane Sawyer who, mentioning journalistic ethics in a lecture, had the entire audience laugh at her. "Journalistic ethics" comes very close to being an oxymoron. Polls of the American people consistently hold journalists in low regard, mainly because of bias and the refusal of most journalists to admit bias.
As for the comfy chair program, I'm reminded of a story I blogged a year or so ago about a UK program (naturally) in which a criminal was paid a stipend weekly to encourage him to give up his criminal ways; it failed, because the criminal said that the stipend wasn't high enough! I'm aware that positive reinforcement/reward can change behavior, but when it is applied to criminals, it seems to me that it insults the law-abiding, who receive no such similar reward for being good citizens.
@wally: and the natural Biblical reference to my last reply is that of the Prodigal Son, who was given the fatted calf and lavished with love by the father, to the point that the good son had to remonstrate with his father. I've always felt something unfair about that story; I don't like to see bad behavior rewarded.
Well, our discussion of journalism seems to have devolved to the typical liberal/conservative dead end. Let me return to the point of contention. Do you believe that the claim "It is understood the rooms will be introduced in most adult jails" is sufficient journalism? Forget liberal and conservative, is it enough for you, sitting there all by itself?
As for the main issue, maybe we can agree that the comfort room idea would be a scandalous waste of resources for "criminals", but may be less so for kids. Then again, maybe not.
By the way, you're supposed to feel that the father's treatment of the Prodigal Son is unfair; that's the whole point. God's grace has nothing to do with good works. If you're a Christian, you have to swallow that pill, however bitter. For us non-Christians, the message of the parable seems to be: life is unfair--deal with it.
@wally: so you insist on scholar-level attribution, with each statement carefully attributed and footnoted? I have to express a bit of skepticism there, and observe that, had the "it is understood" sentence been seen in a Guardian or New York Times article, you'd not be so suspicious.
As for the main issue, maybe we can agree that the comfort room idea would be a scandalous waste of resources for "criminals", but may be less so for "kids."
There. Fixed that up for you.
I accept your fixing. Your skepticism about the definition of kids is just as valid as mine of criminals.
With one breath, you imply that mainstream journalism is disreputable, and with the next, you dismiss any kind of attribution as a "scholar-level" exercise. Robert, drop your programmatic approach for a moment and ask yourself: "it is understood" by whom? Are we not entitled to an answer? Wouldn't that be an important thing to know? Or is that kind of knowledge only for scholars?
@wally: I don't imply that mainstream journalism is disreputable; I state it. And I don't dismiss attribution; it's important, but too often in MSM reporting (especially of news harmful to prominent Republicans) the attribution is to "anonymous sources." Well, how do you determine the value of that? An anonymous source and $10 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
This is related to the "epistemic closure" discussion we never really had last week. Each of us will be more forgiving of news sources we feel to be reflective of our own politics, and distrustful of those that are in opposition to our politics.
So much for dropping a programmatic approach. Yes, I know, that's your prerogative. We'll just leave that as an unanswered question.
On with the UK-bashing!
Post a Comment