Peter Hitchens: Bring back 19th-century prisons

Peter Hitchens: Bring back 19th-century prisons: http://bit.ly/jiEgfE reports @ShamikDas

“@leftfootfwd: Peter Hitchens: Bring back 19th-century prisons: http://t.co/oM5hTwr reports @ShamikDas” More barking than Barkie Barkerson

Um what? They’re *perfectly* believable.

Peter Hitchens: Bring back 19th-century prisons: http://bit.ly/jiEgfE reports @ShamikDas

RT @leftfootfwd: Peter Hitchens: Bring back 19th-century prisons http://t.co/0YMUYH5

Peter Hitchens generally writes reactionary nonsense in my opinion, so I’m not going to disagree with you on that. But I still find Hari’s smugness more annoying than Hitchens’ ranting and this recent quotegate has made me chuckle.

As for what Hitchens has said on prisons, it may shock you to hear that there are many people who would like to see prisons become tougher for those who have broken the law. Colourful language is hardly a surprise for a tabloid columnist, but if the sentiment is that prisons should focus a little more on the punishment aspect of criminal justice, then I would agree.

If Hitchens genuinely said that he doesn’t believe in rehabilitation, full stop, then once again I find myself disagreeing with him. But if he said that some prisoners cannot be rehabilitated as it will never be safe to put them back into civil society, then I agree, as do those to whom I have spoken who once worked in the prison service.

Well yes, not disagreeing on what you say about his tone, certainly!

A very small number of prisoners “cannot be rehabilitated” though. And the answer is NOT, as has been suggested by the Tories, to displace jobs into prisons at sub-minimum wages, putting people out of jobs: It’s wrong to do that, and it creates a perverse inventive to keep the prisons full.

I argue it’s more important to keep non-violent minor offenders OUT of jail in the first place. As I’ve said before, putting that type into jail is an expensive way of generating crime.

Interesting (predictable) that the ‘firebrands’ we tend to hear again and again are on the ‘far-right’. How often does e.g. a firebrand anti-capitalist get repeated quality air time through columns, radio, question time etc. I guess it helps those using their control of the media to position their neo-liberal free market fundamentalism as centre ground and accepted by “all sensible people” as against at the extremes which when you do hear about don’t have a chance to develop a thread unless it’s a right wing one.

If I had what Murdoch &co have to lose perhaps I would do the same thing.

It does explain their oft-panic over the net and the loss of their stranglehold on communication, yes?

Has no-one read Discipline & Punish? 19thC prisons WERE meant to be rehabilitative: http://bit.ly/kZUzIL

Quite agree Leon – that’s why I’ve come to the view that those on the left who think they can make meaningful progress while keeping the media ‘on-side’ are wasting their time – meaningful social progress is precisely what those with control over the media have gained that control to avoid! They may throw out a few crumbs for being good but real change….forget it.

The Daily Mail does what the Daily Mail does best…

RT @leftfootfwd: Peter Hitchens: Bring back 19th-century prisons: http://bit.ly/jiEgfE reports @ShamikDas #NewsClub

I did not hear Peter Hitchens on the radio but I did see him on an episode of The Big Questions recently when he said that in his view prisons should be for the punishment of responsible individuals. They should be austere, clean, free of drugs and run by the prison guards not the prisoners.

Seems reasonable to me. Quite civilised actually.

He may have said on the radio that he would like prisons to be like how they were in the 19th century, I don’t know I didn’t hear it, but I find it hard to believe he said “I would like prisons to be how Arthur George Frederick Griffiths describes them in The World’s Famous Prisons: Chronicles of Newgate”.

Did he honestly say that prisoners should be treated like animals? Did he actually say they should endure mutilation?

I think this article is a bit harsh. I think it probably misrepresents Peter Hitchens and just because the author disagrees with him doesn’t mean he is an “affront to journalism”.

The thing is, we give prisoners things such as TVs and the chance to earn money in prison. Why? I’m not saying treat them like animals, but can’t we outsource work no-one wants to do to them? Unpaid, naturally. They can get 3 basic meals consisting of enough to live on. You would reduce costs in running prisons, and deal with complaints with the standard answer of “You are in prison, not a holiday camp – it is to be endured, not enjoyed.” Harsh, but it might make people think twice before commiting a crime…

I think your argument against Mr Hitchens is easily demolished by Johann Hari’s interview with Tony Blair in the Indie on the 3rd May 2007 an excerpt of which is below:

The Prime Minister seemed at once mournful yet resilient. I repeated the question, the question he had skilfully avoided answering for so long “what do you intend to do about prison reform Prime Minister” Tony looked at me in a way which was both familiar yet guarded, and then a half smile crept across his studious face and with the confidence of a man finally at ease with his conviction he looked me straight in the eye and said “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”

[...] Peter Hitchens: Bring back 19th-century prisons | Left Foot Forward [...]

The above characterisation of my views on prisons is straightforwardly false. I referred, as anyone who listens to the programme can hear, to the period 1890-1950, when the conditions described by Griffith (which my assailant quotes at length, while not troubling to quote me) had long been abolished. And I specifically said that prisons should be austere but not squalid or cruel.

It is, however, perfectly true that I do not ‘believe in ‘ rehabilitation. Why should I? Why should anyone? It is not compulsory, and if you think about it, it is not specially attractive either. The concept , involving changing an adult person’s character, is totalitarian. And in any case there is no evidence that it has ever taken place anywhere. Deterrence, however, is highly effective and can eb shown to be so.

I also support the restoration of the death penalty (in a free society, with presumption of innocence and jury trial). Once again there is a perfectly good case for doing so. You just have to think about it, instead of resorting to knee-jerk reflex and ignorant prejudice.

My arguments on all these subjects , backed with research, are set out in my book ‘A Brief History of Crime’, published by Atlantic Books in 2003. It would be much more interesting and sensible if people would actually discover what I say and think, rather than deluging me with ignorant abuse.

Swivel-eyed rightwing loony wants to hurt people he doesn’t like. No surprises there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases – let them all hang, eh, and if they turn out to be innocent, we can say “oooops! terribly sorry, we made a mistake…” One man wrongly hanged is one too many.

And as for your comments on rehabilitation? Beyond belief. And on your desire to bring back the 1890s, tell me, how exactly does treating prisoners like animals, as sub-humans, help? How does it help integrate them back into society? Do you believe none of them can change, ever? That everyone who’s ever been in prison should be written off? That is a very grim view of humanity indeed…

Shamik,

You present a classic red herring. Yes, there will be miscarriages of justice in any criminal justice system, because no system is perfect. One man wrongly hanged is indeed one too many. But surely one man imprisoned, for any length of time, is also one too many. That innocent men are found guilty on occasion is not an argument against punishment, by whatever method, albeit the death penalty is the most extreme.

And I have to add that I don’t understand the purpose of your excursus halfway through your article. Tristram Hunt’s musings on the unpleasantness of 19th century life in general don’t seem to have anything to do with what Hitchen said about prisons, unless he also said that he would like society in general to go back in time. Forgive me, but I’ve not heard the interview.

“The concept, involving changing an adult person’s character, is totalitarian.”

Deterrence is just as much social engineering as rehabilitation. Moreover, you’re ensuring that prisons will /remain/ expensive ways of generating crime – limiting even further the ability of criminals sent to prison to recover means more will be *back* in prison.

More, the death penalty has been misapplied to innocent people in America, and the same would happen here. Killing someone innocent is murder, no matter how you dress it up, and that’s what you’re calling for, afaik.

Finally, if you have a good argument, have it published as a peer-reviewed paper, not a book. Anyone can publish books these days.

Ed – You can release someone who has been falsely imprisoned. You can’t raise the dead.

Mr Wolfson’s response verges on the churlish. If it’s so easy to write a book and get it published by a mainstream publisher, let him try for himself and see. Peer-review is in any case no guarantee of repute, as any scientist could tell him, and I suspect the response is mainly a way of saying that, even if I have researched the subject carefully, and know what I’m talking about, the writer will never listen to any conservative argument because he is inacpable of acknowledging that a conservative might be right about anything. This is an admission I should have thought he’d want to keep quiet, at least in respectable company.

The argument about the unjustly executed is dealt with at length in my book, but is only available to persons with open minds. Others will just see a red mist of unreasoning, slef-righteous Guardian-readers’ fury.

Our prisons do not generate or regenerate crime. This ignorant boilerplate is standard left-wing conventional wisdom. But, like most conventional wisdom, it isn’t true. Criminals are usually not sent to prison in this country(with the exception of murderers) unless and until they are already hardened and habitual offenders. Many first-time prisoners already have 15 convictions recorded against them( not to mention the large number of unrecorded brushes with the law which will have preceded their formal record).

Deterrence is unlike (and betetr than) ‘rehabilitation’ in two crucial ways. First, it works and can be shown to work. Second, it does not seek to alter the mind or character of the criminal, merely to make him afraid of committing the crime he wants to commit. This can hardly be called ‘social engineering’, unless the term is widened so far that it has no meaning beyond ‘policy designed to change society which I personally do not like’.

It is perfectly true that the dead cannot be brought back to life. I am not sure in what way it is possible to restore 15 or 20 years of someone’s life, when it has been spent in prison. Personally, I think I’d rather be unjustly executed than unjustly locked up for two decades, even if the last six monthsd of those two decades had been illuminated by the hope of release. People don’t think about this much, and so are given to trite staments).

The main thing is to avoid wrongful conviction as much as possible. But no other policy resulting in the deaths of innocents, from on-demand abortion to ridiculously easy dirving tests, to the early release of convicted murders(who kill again with surprising frequency)is abandoned because of this danger.

Mr. Hitchens, you’re assuming I have not published a book – I have, an educational one in media. (And no, this isn’t my real name – one of my current employers is a Tory who has already fired staff who have expressed labour sympathies). You’re also assuming I have much use for pretty much ANY politician – there are perhaps half a dozen in this country I don’t dislike, and two of those are my relatives (libdems, who can’t understand why I won’t discuss politics with them any more).

Regardless, good arguments in sociology, like any science, are not published in books, they are published in peer-reviewed journals – they are vetted for the kind of junk statistics which you have thrown around in your post, about the way prison does not raise recidivism rates, and about recidivism rates for murderers.

I view – and this is certainly not limited to the sort of blind lashing out against anyone not conservative which you have exhibited again there – any call for “read my book about the one true way” as a money grab.

I also think your argument that deterrence is somehow different in it’s essential nature from rehabilitation is laughable. Deterrence is also social engineering, and it is not targeted on criminals, but often used on the wider population to suppress what would otherwise be perfectly legitimate behaviour (photography, as one example).

Not to mention the fact that the poster-child for “deterrence”, the “war on drugs”, is a massive grinder of people’s lives, well-being and freedoms across the world, but one on which no politicians in this Country are willing to consider changing a spot on: as one example which I strongly advocate: jailing minor drug offenders is NOT effective, compared to treatment.

Oh…and there are no “safeguards” which have been proven to work in stopping the judicial murder of the innocent, even many Republicans in America and American states are turning away from it, as a result.

I didn’t assume that Mr Wolfson hasn’t had a book published, though he doesn’t say if it was by a mainstream publisher. I can’t imagine he found it that easy. Had he been a conservative, he would have found it a good deal harder.

If anyone wishes to challenge any of the statistics published in ‘Brief History’, I should be interested to hear what they have to say. Nobody has, in the 8 years since it was published. It has received hostile reviews, but in the form of personal abuse, of the kind we see on this thread, and which I feel I can safely dismiss as the work of people who do not wish to think and would rather be childishly rude about those who try to make them do so.

This is a common deficiency among the modern left, who know they are right and so despise anyone who doesn’t share their world view. I know this well, having been on the left myself for many years. That’s why I’m not afraid of them, or impressed by them.

Those who abused me somehow failed to tkae the opportunity to challenge the figures with which I backed my arguments. I wonder why?

And they are unlikely to, since they are all carefully culled from official publications, and are correct.

Mr Wolfson’s dismissal (sight unseen) of my statistics as ‘junk’ is again typical of theclosed mind. He may wish to make a fetish out of ‘peer review’, and he’s welcome to do so. But it is not in fact a necessary condition for a factual account (nor, necessarily, a sufficient condition).

Here are some statistics he might wish to ponder (not that anyone in the Criminal Justice business would dream of disputing what I say about how hard it is to get ito a British prison, or indeed to stay there once you’ve arrived , since they all know it’s true.Only people such as Mr Wolfson have to cast doubts on it, because that is much preferable to re-examining their easy, fashionable prejudices. I am sorry for them, in a way. But it is tiresome to debate with people so heavily armoured against fact and logic):

‘96,710 criminals sentenced last year for more serious “indictable” offences had 15 or more previous crimes against their name. They included violent muggers, burglars and drug dealers.

‘Of those, only 36 per cent – around 34,600 offenders – were given immediate custody.’

This account uses figures which were issued a few weeks ago ago by the Ministry of Justice.

Mr Wolfson is also a victim of mistaken conventional wisdom on the subject of the alleged ‘war on drugs’, awar(if the word is appropriate) which was called off in this country in 1972. It’s certainly not *my* ‘poster-child for deterrence’. I am currently writing another (non-peer-reviewed) book about how there is no such war. He says :’jailing minor drug offenders is NOT effective, compared to treatment’ I have no idea how he would know this, since minor drug offenders are, alas, no longer jailed in this country. In what way is ‘treatment’ which generally consists of maintaining drug addicts with taxpayer-funded supplies of legal versions of their favourite drug, ‘effective?’.

As for his assertion that ‘there are no “safeguards” which have been proven to work in stopping the judicial murder of the innocent’, I should have thought that the use of DNA in forensics has ruled out many possible miscarriages. The presumption of innocence, unanimous juries of mature and experienced citizens, plus a free press andf the possibility of appeal and reprieve also seem to em to be pretty effective. None of these, of course, operate under the form of execution favoured (or rather condoned and unexamined by) by left-wing liberals, the form which has arisen in this country since the abolition of a proper death penalty – namely the shooting of suspects by armed police.

If he really believes that all policies must be perfect before they can be adopted, then I am afraid he will find that he can do nothing. In which case he doesn’t really have any business commenting on practical politics at all. I wonder, incidentally, what his view was of the NATO intervention in Serbia during the Kosovo affair?

I do not recommend and never have recommended the USA, a wholly different society form ours, as an example. I go to this country’s own past for examples of a properly efefctive criminal justice system, as he would know if he troubled to read my book. But he won’t. Like a little child who won’t eat an unfamiliar dish, he already knows he doesn’t like it, without trying it.

No, I am not going to pay up simply to read yet another unfounded treatise on how everything disagreeing with the author is wrong. You’re using the typical argument tactics of “buy my book or you’re lame” which marks the worst kind of those.

Real sociological arguments are not buried away in books, they’re in scientific papers and debated on the public stage. That you can argue that the government’s totally unscientific line on drugs (which New Labour entirely shared) is somehow NOT part of the war on drugs is laughable, and a further example of how you’re simply out to make a profit on books.

I note you didn’t touch on the photography issue, either, and it’s just one of many examples of how prohibitionist policy works. Want to talk about how that’s shaping up for the internet as well, in a “war” which can’t be won, and will do massive amounts of further damage to the younger generation’s respect for copyright, without significant medium/long term effect on unauthorised copying?

Peter – “there is a perfectly good case” for restoring the death penalty.

There is a case that seems perfectly good to someone for pretty much anything. However, you also mention “in a free society”, creating something close to an oxymoron. How can you create a free society if a member of that society can take your life ‘legitimately’ in circumstances other than self defence? This seems to me to be fundamentally flawed.

Dear Mr. Hitchens,

You make two claims: one is empirical (deterrence is better than rehabilitation) and the other is normative (rehabilitation is totalitarian).

Without having read your book (although I intend to do so imminently), these two claims have in fact been addressed at length in criminological research. Find more here: http://bit.ly/iFZuiN

Peter Hitchens,

Having said at the beginning of this thread that I have, in the past, found your articles to be reactionary, I have to say that I have been very impressed by your even-handed responses here.

I find it telling that, thus far, no-one has taken up the challenge of disproving the statistics quoted in your book.

Lastly, Leon, do you really believe that ‘good arguments in sociology, like any science, are not published in books, they are published in peer-reviewed journals’? Good arguments can be found in a variety of places.

Ed;

Bluntly? Yes. There are a LOT of books by out and out crackpots, hard-sold by the very tactics Hitchens uses here. Peer-reviewed science is a wonderful filter. Alternatively, open discussion and debate – but NOT hiding the secrets of the universe away in a book.

I had an identical come on – “he already knows he doesn’t like it, without trying it” for a Birther book today from an American friend. That’s the impression I’m getting.

Mr Wolfson has now proved definitively that he does not know how to conduct a civilised argument with an opponent (and is apparently unaware of the existence of libraries where books can be obtained without charge, or for a small reservation fee which I will happily reimburse for him if he is really so short of money). The reasons for declining to read ‘Birther’ books are quite plain. Their main contention has been shown to be false, beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Wolfson, by contrast, has nothing but his acquired prejudices, received opinions and off-the-peg Guardian-reader’s opinions to sustain his certianty that I am wrong and he has no need to read my book. he is also, I would guess, afraid of finding out that his world-view is based on falsehoods. Many intelligent people are, and that is why they get angry with those who point it out to them.

Mr ‘Citizen’ asks :’How can you create a free society if a member of that society can take your life ‘legitimately’ in circumstances other than self defence?

I see no contradiction. A free society is (amongst other things) one in which the individual is free from interference imn his life unless he violates a known and freely-agreed code of laws, enforced by a limited government through known and limited punishments.

If officers of that state’s government, acting under laws freely arrived at, fine offenders, that does not show want of respect for private property. If they imprison offenders, that does not show want of respect for liberty. And if they execute heinous murderers, that does not show want of respect for life. And in no case does the appliaction of known laws, freely arrived it, threaten liberty in itself.

Or if it does, I do not know how, and perhaps Mr ‘Citizen’ can explain it to me?

On the contrary, I should have thought that a society in which life is sternly protected by law is much more likely to be orderly( a major prerequisite for freedom) than one in which life is cheap, a matter of a few years in prison, sometimes less than might be served for a theft.

I should have thought that any serious criminal code (Montesquieu provides good arguments for this in ‘The Spirit of the Laws’, which are practical, leaving aside the moral ones) needs to reserve a special penalty for murder.

As for self-defence, the demonstrable deterrent effects of an effective death penalty (no such thing, by the way, exists in the USA, where convicted murderers are far more likely to die of old age than be executed, while the courts argue about rndless appeals, and where many ‘death penalty’ states seldom if ever actually execute anyone) are a form of self-defence. They are comparable to the existence of standing armed forces, which deter an attack but which, if challeged, will lawfully kill and destroy the enemy. The actual hanging of a murderer is comparable to the actual use of armed forces in self defence.

Oh, and I note Mr Wolfson has yet to share with us his view on the NATO bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo crisis. I should very much like to know. It is important.

“I find it telling that, thus far, no-one has taken up the challenge of disproving the statistics quoted in your book.”

Although the statistics in the *book* are not addressed, the scientific claims made in the BBC Radio 5 interview, and the comments section above, are addressed in Comment 22.

Please, Ed’s Talking Balls, and Mr. Hitchens, I recommend you both take a look. As a scholar of rehabilitation myself, it would be remiss of me not to bring the scientific literature on this issue to your attention. It would also be remiss of you to make the claims you do without seeing it yourself.

Dear Peter, I can’t claim to speak for Mr Wolfson on Kosovo, for all I know he may agree with you, but I must ask: Of what relevance is it to this subject? And talking of Kosovo, today of all days, maybe you’d care to avert your glance to the Hague… Are you so blinded by your hatred of Blair you’re unable to see the bigger picture? Or are you spouting from the same hymn sheet as the late Alan Clark MP, who described the Kosovans as “those loathsome, verminous gipsies…”

Johann,

Thank you for pointing that out and sorry for having inexplicably passed over you earlier comment. I will have a look.

P.S. Can I just say that your non-confrontational tone is refreshing and I commend you for it.

Mr Das asks ‘of what relevance is [Kosovo] to the subject?’ When I know what Mr Wolfson thinks about it, I’ll explain.

Nobody who actually knew anything about me would attribute views such as those quoted (as having been said by the late Alan Clark) to me.

Mr. Hitchens;

Civilised debate requires the person you’re debating with be civilised. The scientific evidence says you’re wrong, and you’re simply out to make a profit off your book. Calling me names won’t change a thing, it’s just another form of moon-conspiracy peddling.

Also, why would I answer a question you obviously see as a trap? The only thing I can come up is you think I’m a fool…

Johann; Quite. More, in this day of a profusion of measures (some of which are frankly ridiculous, like criminalising taking pictures of your partner during acts which it is quite legal to actually DO, themselves), I can only see “deterrence” as a nasty form of social control – there needs to be a wide evaluation of the punishments for “victimless” crimes, for instance. (yes, okay, the state usually suffers in the long run, but rehabilitation for drug users…)

Ed’s Talking Balls: Many thanks for the compliment, and I look forward to hearing your views on my contribution.

Mr. Wolfson: You’re entitled to see any form of social control as nasty, be it deterrence-based or otherwise, just as I believe Mr. Hitchens is entitled to believe that rehabilitation is totalitarian, etc. I merely hope my contribution has been to clarify the distinction that when one claims either of these stances, one is making a *moral* decision, and this must be distinguished from a *scientific* position… For the latter, it’s crucial that we’re guided by an understanding of the correct facts. My impression has been that Mr. Hitchens wasn’t familiar with what the *science* had to say on the matter. Hopefully, by rectifying this, it will have an effect on his *moral* stance on rehabilitation and deterrence. It certainly had that effect on me when I found it out myself.

Mr. Hitchens: I hope you have a moment to look at the link I have provided above. It gives a brief overview of the scientific literature on which your moral stance is based. Like I said to Mr. Wolfson, my intent isn’t to change your mind here. I’m just trying to *inform* the debate, by rectifying what seems to me to have been a mis-conceived notion about the effectiveness of rehabilitation and of deterrence. I would welcome the opportunity to hear your thoughts.

Peter Hitchens calls for a return to Victorian prisons, an end to rehabilitation and the return of the death penalty http://bit.ly/kDGppt

Peter – I think the question of whether having the death penalty is compatible with a ‘free society’ depends on one’s understanding of what a free society is.

My understanding suggests that a free society is one in which there are fundamental human rights including the most basic right of all: an equal right to life. Such basic rights would over-ride any particular laws that may be put in place by the (majority?) population from time to time.

Johann – I don’t necessarily view them as “nasty” per-se, but they need to be closely watched, and the claim that one, and not the other, is a form of social engineering on adults is laughable.

My interest is applying the results of scientific study, not applying the results of emotional outrage, as has happened far too many times in this country, and which Mr. Hitchens views exemplify. *glares at the tabloid press*

Mr Wolfson is priceless. Nor have I called him names, though I have characterised his behaviour in mocking terms.
He says ‘The scientific evidence says you’re wrong’. How does he know? He has not read my book. And he adds:’and you’re simply out to make a profit off your book.’

Does he really think I stand to make any money out of a book published in 2003? Very few books make any serious money at all. This certianly isn’t one of them. I’ve alreadyty offered to pay his library fees. I get the impression he’s just afraid of reading it, in case I’m right and he then has to reconstruct his world view. I know the problem. When I was a leftist ideologue, I went through the same process. then I admitted I was wrong. can’t recommend it highly enough.

Dave Citizen – what is your opinion on the idea that if you violate another person’s right to life then you should lose yours?

Dear Mr. Wolfson: I agree that the distinction between rehabilitative efforts as social engineering on the one hand and deterrence-based efforts on the other is not something I’ve come across before. That said, I’ll be sure to read Mr. Hitchens’ book when I return from holiday to see if I understand the outlook.

Dear Mr. Hitchens: As regards the scientific evidence, will you respond to the overview of this that I took some time to prepare for you? I certainly hope so, especially given that it seems to form the central gravamen of Mr. Wolfson’s, yours, and my argument. As it happens, I believe it lays out quite definitively that your stance on the effectiveness of deterrence and rehabilitation is not as well-founded as you believe.

Johann;

I’d look carefully at the way deterrence-based effects are being deployed, unsuccessfully, against unauthorised copying. The effects are a neo-prohibitionist campaign which is hindering legitimate use and users, and rapidly eroding respect for IP in general.

It’s most certainly social engineering, of a ham-handed type.

Mr Hitchens – Quite apart from anything else, I don’t buy dead tree books, or use dead tree libraries (There are medical issues involved before you poke fun again).

Mr Wolfson declares that he doesn’t buy books or use libraries. I think in that case we can write him off as a serious participant in this discussion. A man who finds endless excuses not to read a book which he vehemntly condemns is wasting not juts my time, but his own and everyone else’s.

I shan’t engage with him any more. Huge amounts of knowledge and research are available in no other way.

I did follow the link on rehabilitation, but (and this may be due to my admittedly and regrettably poor web skills, which I always seek to improve) it seemed to lead only to a purchase page, which I will follow if necessary but do not think was the contributor’s intent. The summary didn’t give me much pause.
I am baffled as to how one could establish the effectiveness of rehabilitation until one had

a) defined it (which I haven’t seen done so far)
b) conducted a controlled experiment, in which identical groups of convicted criminal prisoners (how does one find these?) are subjected either to rehabilitation(once we have defined it)
or to its absence. And perhaps a third one is subjected to punishment . And from which other possible influences (ageing,for instance, one of the most powerful influences on the propensity to commit crimes)had been excluded.

All this is a burden on those who maintain its effectiveness. They do so not because they have any idea what it is or how it would work, but mainly because their own personal ideology requires them to reject the alternative – the concepts of retribution, punishment, deterrence or indeed full personal responsibility. This full personal responsibility, which most modern thinkers reject, is the core of the argument. They would rather deny the full humanity of the criminal (and indeed subject him to totalitarian procedures, for how could you release him until his ‘rehabilitation’was judged complete by those who defined this thing?) than punish him for wilfully doing wrong( they also, being post-Christian, tend to reject the idea of absolute wrong.

There’s a slightly sinister example of this at work in British prisons today. Persons convicted of murders which they deny are denied parole on the grounds that they are ‘in denial’ ( ghastly psychobabble phrase). Those who admit their guilt are given parole. But what if the person is genuinely innocent, and refuses to lie, which a genuinely innocent person would be likely to do? This gives me the creeps.

Oh, one otehr thing. Deterrence oeprates not only on criminals (where its effect is limited, since some criminals are habitual and cannot be detrred by anything) but on potential criminals. Its operation can be best measured by noting the large increase in criminality which takes place when it is abandoned ( as can be shown in this country in the past 60 years)

As I think the concept of ‘rehabilitation’ is too vague to be of any use, is designed for the purposes of evasion, and has never been tested in a scientific way (and is unlikely ever to be) I watch with interest my opponents’ efforts to conjure its existence out of thin air, and then claim success for it.

So far, they haven’t even done the first.

On the question of a universal and absolute ‘right to life’, from what is this derived? If it is absolute, it presumably manadates absolute non-violence at all times, pacifism, non-resistance to attack and a number of other noble but (on close examination) awkward ideas.

I very much respect absolute pacifists who are prepared to take the full consequences of such a belief. But I find that they are rare in theory and rarer still in practice.

I do not myself know why ‘Human Rights’ of any kind should be valid. I do not know what gives them their force, or why anyone should pay any attention to them. In practice they generally end up as a device for increasing the power of lawyers, as conflicts between differnet group rights are endlessly litigated.

I derive my moral code from elsewhere, from the Christian religion as summarised in the formularies of the Church of England)

But, leaving that aside (my only real point is that anybody citing ‘Human Rights’ is not playing an argument-winning trump card, any more than I am doing by citing the 39 Articles) , if an absolute ‘right to life’ means that one cannot discriminate between a heinous murder and an innocent child, what use is it?

As it happens, the ‘right to life’ has been slyly defined in most Western nations as beginning only at birth, so the massacre of tens of thousands of unborn babies, whose only crime is to be inconvenient to their parents (who knew how babies were made when they conceived them) , can be permitted. I think this is typical of these self-serving ideas. They don’t resolve the argument which is, as I said above, fundamentally about personal responsibility for one’s actions. Social Democracy and its allied thought systems tend to dislike this concept, because they wish to transfer responsibility to the allegedly benevolent state.

Deterrence is of course a social intervention, but one which returns responsibility to the individual. Modern penal policy transfers responsibilty from the individual to the state.

No, I did not. Mr. Hitchens.

It’s clear you didn’t even skim read my post. As I said I read using an ereader since it makes it *considerably* easier for me to read than print books – or you’re being rude about medical issues, simply because you can be.

I’m absolutely serious, you’re just a clear example of what awaits if we can’t throw the Nasty Party out of power.

Dear Mr. Hitchens,

Many thanks for the response.

My apologies that you were unable to access the peer-reviewed articles I had provided in my summary for you. There is unfortunately no way around this; academic journals, to my great lament, do not make their material open-access, and I hope that this convention will change soon. Until that point, however, please refrain from claiming that you have perused the scientific literature, if you have yourself just admitted to having been denied access to it. Your argument that Mr. Wolfson lacks the authority to contribute his views on your book is the same as my argument that you lack the authority to claim you have surveyed the research on rehabilitation when you evidently have not done so.

If you had read the scientific references I provided, then you would know that, as regards your two concerns:
A) Rehabilitation has been defined, very well, a long time ago. I eschewed doing so in my overview because I was operating under the assumption that we were all familiar with what was at issue here. If you would like further reading, I refer you to this benchmark text, which should be available at any well-resourced academic library: http://bit.ly/lEy1cU
B) I’m glad you bring up the social science methodology of controlled trials. You are indeed correct that the highest standard of methodological rigour (the randomized, controlled trial) is the most valid means of determining effectiveness, and if you had read the references I provided you would know that not only one, but many such trials have been conducted. The problem of finding identical prisoners is solved by randomisation: once enough prisoners have been randomly allocated into different groups, each of which receives a different intervention (rehabilitation in one, deterrence in another, treatment as usual in another, as an example) any systematic difference between groups is eliminated. Any ensuing differences in criminal behaviour can then be attributed to the intervention alone.
I assure you, many hundreds of such trials have been conducted, evaluating the rehabilitative and deterrent effects of many different types of interventions on many different types of offenders. Yes, important variables such as age are controlled for (in the well-conducted and highly methodologically valid evaluations, which is what I’m limiting my claims to).

You are correct that deterrence operates at two levels: the specific (the criminal) and the general (potential criminals). To evaluate the effectiveness of deterrence, however, why not apply the same level of methodological rigour, namely a controlled evaluation? The data that you cite, that a large increase in criminality took place when deterrence was abandoned in this country is highly scientifically suspect: for starters, it is correlative, and not causative (as randomized, controlled trials are). Using the higher criterion of methodological rigour, deterrent policies are shown to be ineffective, and even in many cases criminogenic.

Hopefully this addresses your concerns: rehabilitation has been defined, it has been tested to the standard you would like to see, and it is proven to be more effective than deterrence-based policies.

Whether or not you still think rehabilitation is totalitarian is your choice: the scientifically established facts, however, are not subject to debate until data is provided that claims to the contrary. I wish you luck finding any.

Mr Koehler says :’please refrain from claiming that you have perused the scientific literature, if you have yourself just admitted to having been denied access to it. ‘
I have made no such claim. I was careful not to do so. So I rather object to being upbraided for having done so.

Perhaps Mr Koehler could summarise the alleged proof that ‘rehabilitation’ (whatever it is) works, since he is so familiar with it.

By the way, it would be nice if the author of this site would admit that the original attack on me, which began this exchange, was wholly misleading. It ws in the hope of receiving such an acknowledgement that I wrote ehre in the first place.

Mr Wolfson’s reference to his use of an ereader is the first he has made that I can see on this post(though he says ‘as I said’ when he informs us of this. Had this been his reason for not reading my book, why didn’t he say so in the first place?

Dear Mr Hitchens, you were indeed calling for a return to 19th-century, Victorian prison conditions (from 1890 onwards) – though you did not call for the conditions of depravity described by Griffiths. Nonetheless, I dare say an 1890 prison would not have been a million miles from the squalor described – and is probably closer to those conditions than 2011 conditions – but maybe that’s the point.

On rehabilitation, again, I must ask what is it you expect prisoners to do when inside – unless you plan to lock them up ever longer (or forever). Surely a prisoner who emerges from jail rehabilitated and no longer felonious is better than one who emerges and continues to commit crime?

And on the death penalty, I cannot believe you would actually rather be wrongly hanged than wrongly imprisoned, I simply cannot believe it, nor can I understand your equating of the death penatly with abortion. I, for one, am glad we live in a society in which the latter is legal and the former illegal, rather than the other way around.

Mr. Hitchens,

In Comment 11 you wrote: “I do not ‘believe in ‘ rehabilitation. Why should I? Why should anyone? It is not compulsory, and if you think about it, it is not specially attractive either. The concept , involving changing an adult person’s character, is totalitarian. And in any case there is *no evidence that it has ever taken place anywhere*. Deterrence, however, is highly effective and can eb shown to be so.” (emphasis added)

When you claim that there has been *no evidence* of a phenomenon, it is not unreasonable to infer that you have in fact checked the available knowledge base.

The summary of ‘alleged proof that rehabilitation works’ has been provided, at some length, in the link I provided to you in Comment 22. You may choose to disregard the evidence, but please don’t pretend it’s non-existent, and please don’t mis-represent it as saying that deterrence works better than rehabilitation. It’s scientifically inaccurate to do so. It’s also willfully negligent, now that I’ve brought it to your attention.

No, Mr. Hitchens, it’s the second reference. I am dyslexic and find some sans-serif fonts (notably Myriad Pro) /considerably/ easier to read than the serif fonts typically used in printing.

It’s a side issue, which I only brought up in reference to your library reference.

Johann; Please, you’re wasting your time. In post 22, you gave a link which leads on to

This isn’t about science. It’s not even about faith – the Anglican church took a stance against it at the 13th Lambeth conference. It’s a purely emotional stance, which cannot be rationally or philosophically argued with.

Your well researched post 22 has simply been dismissed… (the “paywall” rebuttal is notable, in that the only one I saw there yielded to a general University login, that MP’s would not have that kind of database access is laughable)

Shamik Das:

“I simply cannot believe it, nor can I understand your equating of the death penatly with abortion. I, for one, am glad we live in a society in which the latter is legal and the former illegal, rather than the other way around.”

So, firstly, let’s examine your wording here: you cannot believe or understand Hitchens’ opinion? Simply put, you cannot believe or understand that someone may hold an educated, informed (how many executions have you witnessed?) opinion that is different to yours? Thank-you for proving, once again, just how dangerous the British Left’s opinions are: how dare you disagree; it is illogical to disagree with us. I am afraid I am not of the same nightmarish opinion as you – that only one point of view may be held.

Secondly, you are proud that Britain does not retain Capital Punishment but does permit abortion? Simply put, you despise the concept of a murderer, convicted by a jury of his or her peers (in line with the established laws laid down by an elected, accountable legislature), and with avenues of appeal, potentially facing execution. And yet, at the same time, you have absolutely no problem with human life being destroyed in the womb?

As I said, I am not of the opinion that only one point of view may be held by society at large, but I personally find your moral gymnastics troubling.

‘you were indeed calling for a return to 19th-century, Victorian prison conditions (from 1890 onwards) – though you did not call for the conditions of depravity described by Griffiths.’

So the whole premise of this post is totally wrong. Not that he really admits it, let alone apologises.

I think I’m done here, thanks.

Alex;

So, in that case, given the Tory clear and present danger caused to the welfare of a massive amount of people, never anyone’s “opinions”, what strategy of deterrence should be employed against them? Please, gymnast THAT.

I have no idea how on Earth you are seeking to link the two, but in that case the ‘strategy of deterrence’ to David Cameron’s party is a clear and self-evident one: pressure for a serious Opposition, rather than what we have in Parliament just now.

No, what *criminal or civil* penalties, in accordance with deterrence strategies applied in the West should be used?

See, I don’t believe that YOU believe in deterrence as-practiced at all.

I am told ‘of ‘alleged proof that rehabilitation works’ has been provided, at some length, in the link I provided to you in Comment 22. ‘

I don’t agree. A number of propaganda works by persons already committed to the concept of ‘rehabilitation’ have been cited. No definition of the phenomenon has been provided. Nor any proof of its existence.

Meanwhile I still cannot find Mr Wolfson’s earlier reference to his ereader demands(ccan he point me to the posting?) In any case, if this is so decisive, why, as I said, didn’t he raise it from the start? If I went to the publishers and got them to e-mail him a personal electronic copy, I suspect he’d come up with another reason for not reading it. For his real reason for not reading it is that he doesn’t like reading books he disagrees with. It’s a common problem. Though, as i have said, not one to be proud of.

As I said, I’m done here. I have my own weblog to conduct.

I thought I would have another stab at a question I think I previously asked Mr Hitchens on his blog.

I agree entirely that it is inconsistent to oppose the death penalty because an innocent person might be executed, while favouring wars such as the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia that will inevitably result in the deaths of innocents. However, what if one is against the killing of persons in captivity whether they are innocent or not? In this case, I think it is not inconsistent to oppose the death penalty but to support war in some circumstances, as long as it does not involve the killing of captives.

I was mocked for saying war does not involve ‘deliberate killing’ but I think this was unfair, because I believe there are laws against not killing enemy combatants once they present no threat. Even shooting a soldier in the head is not necessarily deliberately killing him, because he then might be rescued and given mental attention.

Sorry, I meant to say “medical attention” at the end.

Mr. Hitchens;

As I said *several* times, it’s a minor side issue.

Your dismissal of an entire field of science simply because your, entirely personal, beliefs refuse to accept it is an absolute red flag for me. It’s no more and no less than fanaticism, which is the true enemy.

I’m at a loss for what evidence I need to provide, in order to convince Mr. Hitchens of an observed, empirical fact. I have provided a link to a book that provides adequate definition of the terms employed here. I have also provided a catalogue of high-quality, peer-reviewed, academic references in support of the claim that rehabilitation works, and that it does so far better than deterrence-based measures.

My efforts have been dismissed as ‘ideological’, ‘propagandist’, and (this isn’t one I’ve ever come across before) ‘post-Christian’. Perhaps this comment thread was an inappropriate medium in which to conduct this kind of discourse. For want of a more propitious occasion on which to discuss these matters, I’m going to end my contributions here. Many thanks for allowing me to participate.