Forbes magazine: "Prisons Are Good" by Theodore Dalrymple


PDA






papercut
June 15, 2003, 11:38 PM
Forbes magazine
May 26, 2003
page 48

"On my mind" guest columnist article

by Theodore Dalrymple, a pseudonym for a doctor who works in a British inner-city hospital and in a prison, contributes to the Spectator in London and to the Manhattan Institute's City Journal.

Prisons Are Good

The inmate population in the U.S. has surpassed 2 million for the first time. Hear! Hear!

There is no finer investment, said Winston Churchill, than putting milk into babies. The second-best investment is putting criminals into prison. It may not bring much in the way of happiness, but it certainly prevents a lot of misery.

To judge by the statistics, America is investing very sensibly in prisons. As one might expect, the New York Times has expressed unease that the prison population of the U.S. recently exceeded 2 million for the first time, but from the other side of the Atlantic this appears to be a sign of good health and self-confidence rather than of malaise, weakness and injustice. Unlike Europe, America still has the strength of mind and character to deal with antisocial wrongdoing in a serious and consistent fashion. By contrast we in Europe have all but surrendered to the worst elements in our societies.

The surrender has been most complete in Britain, which is now the most crime-ridden country in the Western world (though France and Holland are not far behind). With the single--admittedly important--exception of murder, Britons are now far more likely to be victims of crime than are Americans: Our robbery and burglary rates are much higher than America's, and crime in Britain is far less concentrated in urban ghettos than it is in the U.S. No Briton ever returns home nowadays without wondering whether he has been burgled.

The change from good order to lawlessness in Britain has been startling both in its extent and its swiftness. Robberies in England and Wales rose, from an already very high level, by 27% between 2001 and 2002. Moreover, on average, the seriousness of the crimes reported has increased greatly.

True, our rate of imprisonment is now higher than it has ever been before, at 135 per 100,000 population. (The U.S. figure is 686 per 100,000.) The fact that we have more prisoners than ever before, at a time of unprecedented levels of crime, is taken by commentators to prove that imprisonment does not work. But even these tenderhearted souls could not possibly believe that if all our prisoners were released without the possibility of ever being reimprisoned, the crime rate would not rise.

From 1931 to 1991 the number of prisoners in England and Wales rose from 11,000 to 46,000. But the number of crimes recorded per prisoner rose much more steeply, from 15 to 115, demonstrating that the odds of a malefactor's being sent to prison lengthened considerably.

Those who deny the efficacy of prison are rather coy about the alternatives. And only their willful lack of familiarity with the quotidian acts of evil perpetrated in the society that surrounds them permits them to retain what they believe to be their generously merciful and understanding attitude. When I describe to them the cases that I see and hear about daily in my medical practice and ask them what they think the appropriate punishment would be, they always reply "life imprisonment." They offer this answer without realizing that it implies that our prisons would be vastly more populous than they are, so frequently committed are the kinds of crimes I have described.

Like all sensible people, they are appalled to hear that three youths who robbed a shop, one of them attempting to strangle the shop assistant while the others filled their pockets, received only a warning (that is to say, a polite request not to do it again) from the police; or that a man who stalked a woman, issuing threats by telephone to kill her and who eventually attacked her in the street, kicking, biting and threatening to do worse next time, likewise received only a meaningless warning.

According to a recent British government survey, 26% of female crime victims were subsequently threatened with further violence if they either went to the police or gave testimony.

America has much to learn from what has happened in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. It need have no shame about its high rate of imprisonment.

If you enjoyed reading about "Forbes magazine: "Prisons Are Good" by Theodore Dalrymple" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CZ 75 BD
June 15, 2003, 11:47 PM
and thanks to the rebels who fought and died for our independence from the British monarchy!

Justin
June 15, 2003, 11:49 PM
Hrrmph.
I might be more enthusiastic about incarceration if there weren't so many people locked up for victimless crimes.

rrader
June 16, 2003, 12:28 AM
The British must be a terribly weak and passive people to tolerate this.

What a low and backward culture.

If the British government is not going to respect fundamental human rights regarding self defense and freedom then it's time for the US Department of State to put the UK on it's list of not fully free nations, IMO.

papercut
June 16, 2003, 01:36 AM
If the British government is not going to respect fundamental human rights regarding self defense and freedom then it's time for the US Department of State to put the UK on it's list of not fully free nations, IMO.

FreedomHouse has already taken a stab at that. They have a rating system in which every country is rated on political rights, civil liberties, and freedom status. Beginning in 1990, England went from a 1,1,F (very free politically, civil liberties, overall a "Free" country) to a 1,2,F (still very free politically, not as free civil liberties, still rated "Free" overall).

http://www.freedomhouse.org/ratings/turk.htm

I think they need to revise England down another notch....

seeker_two
June 16, 2003, 12:03 PM
The only revision I'd make to our current prison system would be to make any prisoner sentenced to 30+ years w/o parole possibility a death row inmate. THAT would cut down on the overpopulation problem significantly...

Mk VII
June 16, 2003, 12:12 PM
'Dr Dalrymple' writes a column for the 'Spectator' which usually centres around his work as a visiting prison doctor and the moronic specimens of humanity he encounters there (and in his surgery).

moa
June 16, 2003, 01:02 PM
I understand that 25% of the people in our prisons are illegal aliens. Get rid of the aliens and you probably get at least a 25% reduction in crimes.

We (USA) also have 4,000,000 people on parole and probation. Many on probation are for things like low level narcotics possession and DUI.

I have come to the conclusion that perhaps we should legalize the possession of small amounts of narcotics and treat it like we treat booze.

Have government dispensaries for narcotics like pot. It might take a great deal of profit out of the narcotics trade, which fuels a lot of crime.

Any other opinions on that premise?

Leatherneck
June 16, 2003, 01:43 PM
I've never quite been able to convince myself that legalizing drugs would be a good thing, either in the short term or the long. Having said that, I do feel that we're tying up limited jail and prison resources with detaining many of the wrong types of prisoners, while the violent types get lenient treatment from liberal judges for first, second, and even third offenses. Must be plenty frustrating for the lawdogs in the US.

Regarding the UK, I fear they've simply sold out to the left and are destined for hard times indeed.

TC
TFL Survivor

agricola
June 16, 2003, 02:04 PM
yet another wonderful piece of journalistic nonsense that somehow escapes the otherwise omnipresent critics on THR.

does anyone here wonder why we "tolerate" this state of affairs? could it be that, in fact, the image you people have of the UK is totally and utterly wrong?

bogie
June 16, 2003, 02:44 PM
The thing is, we've got people who have mandatory sentences for small amounts of drugs who _have_ to be in prison, but since there aren't mandatory sentences for the average violent offender, they get put back out on the street.

We've already LOST the war on drugs. Prohibition doesn't work. Never has, and all it will do in the future is keep prices on the street high, thereby encouraging the very black market economy which it is intended to discourage. For every dealer who is taken "off the street" (and housed at taxpayer expense), another will be tempted by the relatively easy money.

Legalize it. Tax it. REGULATE it, and most of the crime will go away. People are ALREADY doing drugs, and they're not going to stop. Take the money out of it, and the crime associated with drug use will go away.

Take the drug offenders out of our legal/penal system, and concentrate on the _real_ criminals.

agricola
June 16, 2003, 02:48 PM
bogie,

exactly.

Pendragon
June 16, 2003, 02:49 PM
Please enlighten us agricola.

What should civilized people think when they hear so much about the brutality in the English street?

Here in the US, we all realize that our supposedly high murrder and crime rates are focused heavily on certain urban areas which sensible people avoid.

Most middle class Americans are suprisingly safe from crime in general and especially violent crime.

Most of us do not wonder if our posessions will be there when we get home, we do not worry about being accosted on a daily basis and we do not have police scolding robbers and thugs like they were naughty school boys.

You may have an idyllic perception of your home land and the English have much to be proud of, but we are completely agast at what you are becoming. All we hear are stories about how opposing crime in the slightest way will more likely than not get you in serious trouble. Americans have a very low tolerance for crime and probably due to our cultural identification with cowboys, we all stand up and cheer when a citizen dispenses a little street justice. Yeah - the police always say "careful, thats very dangerous!" but they do not arrest people who resist criminals or intervene on behalf of others - even if the details are a little sketchy - we err on the side of "that criminal deserved what he got". Even in the proto-Marxist State I live in, people shoot home invaders and shop keepers shoot robbers several times a year - and we know who the god guys are.

So please tell us what we should think and how we should view Merry England. My family came from Ireland and Wales so I do consider it the country of my roots, but mostly I just feel sorry for the people who live there now.

agricola
June 16, 2003, 03:21 PM
pendragon,

sure:

"Here in the US, we all realize that our supposedly high murrder and crime rates are focused heavily on certain urban areas which sensible people avoid."

I'd disagree with this in terms of an (implied) blase attitude towards urban problems. However, using your point in terms of the UK, the vast majority of crime in the UK is centred in the cities - London, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Bristol, Newcastle and Cardiff, and even then only usually in certain areas. I'd wager that in the countryside police areas like Norfolk, or North Wales, would compare favourably with similar rural US states.

"Most of us do not wonder if our posessions will be there when we get home, we do not worry about being accosted on a daily basis and we do not have police scolding robbers and thugs like they were naughty school boys".

most of us do not worry about these things. if one reads the majority of these stories, one finds a recurring theme that the warning of juvenile criminals for robbery and other serious offences is never accompanied by a name, or other detail that can be checked. In my experience juveniles, or anyone else, do not get cautioned or juvenile reprimands or warnings for robbery.

"but they do not arrest people who resist criminals or intervene on behalf of others - even if the details are a little sketchy - we err on the side of "that criminal deserved what he got"

in the main, we do not arrest have-a-go heroes over here. Where they are arrested and sent for trial it is because the evidence available contradicts their account of events. In any case, its a strange way to conduct justice when one side is automatically judged against before impartial investigation of the facts of the case.

Martin and the other oft-cited cases were imprisoned, not because they had defended themselves, but because a jury of their peers determined that they had not acted in self defence based on the evidence of the case.

"Most middle class Americans are suprisingly safe from crime in general and especially violent crime."

again, its the same here. being involved in crime or with criminals, organised or otherwise, is the biggest threat to an individuals safety in terms of violent crime and crime generally.

Pendragon
June 16, 2003, 08:02 PM
Thank you for your reply.

If you enjoyed reading about "Forbes magazine: "Prisons Are Good" by Theodore Dalrymple" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!