# The nicest prison in the world



## Deleted member 84471 (May 14, 2010)

*World's poshest prison? Cells with en-suite bathrooms and no window bars (plus ?1m Banksy-style art)*



By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 11:43 AM on 12th May 2010

It's the ultimate prison break for murderers and rapists - en-suite bathrooms, ?1million Banksy-style art and even windows without bars.

That's the 'hard-time' waiting for some of Norway's most dangerous criminals in the new purpose built ?15 million Halden Prison.

The jail took 10 years to build and has been touted to be the most humane in the world for its 252 inmates.

Prison authorities claim the luxury environment of the 75-acre site helps reduce the country's already very low crime rate.

Each inmate gets a private cell with mini-fridge, flat-screen TV and even a private en-suite bathroom and barless windows - because they let in more sunlight.

Then for every 12 to 15 rooms there is a top-notch kitchen with stainless steel work tops and lounge areas complete with IKEA-style sofas and coffee tables.

To cap-off their stay at Halden, the pampered prisoners can even enjoy a gym - complete with rock-climbing wall - a music studio and luxury library.

Architect Hans Henrik Hoilund admitted Halden holds some of Norway's most dangerous prisoners but - believes its design means they don't re-offend.

He said: 'The most important thing is that the prison looks as much like the outside world as possible.

'To avoid an institutional feel, exteriors are not concrete but made of bricks, galvanized steel and larch; the buildings seem to have grown organically from the woodlands.  

'And while there is one obvious symbol of incarceration - a 20-foot concrete security wall along the prison's perimeter - trees obscure it.

'And it's top has been rounded off, so it isn't too hostile.'

The Norwegian Banksy-style artist Dolk was also hired to paint a ?1million mural on the prison wall showing a prisoner in striped uniform using a ball and chain as a shot put.

Halden opened it's doors officially last month, taking in the first batch of inmates. Prison governor Are Hoidal said there have been no escape attempts.

He said: 'In the Norwegian prison system, there's a focus on human rights and respect.  

'We don't see any of this as unusual.

'When they arrive many of them are in bad shape and we want to build them up, give them confidence through education and work and have them leave as better people.'

Halden also features jogging trails in nearby woods and a freestanding two-bedroom house where inmates can host their families during overnight visits.  

In Norway only 20 per cent of prisoners end up back in jail after release, compared to between 50 and 60 per cent in the UK.




_*Home away from home: One of the private cells at Norway's new Halden Prison - which appears to be nicer than most university dormitory rooms*_



*It's the end of 'dropping the soap' jokes with these posh en-suite bathrooms for inmates at the new ?15million prison*



*Keeping prisoners healthy: The rock-climbing wall and basketball nets in the new gym at the prison*



*Banksy-style: A ?1million mural in the prison courtyard by Norwegian street artist Dolk*



*A jail cell corridor in the new prison - where half the guards are female as it is believed this decreases aggression*



*The landscaped prison grounds surrounding the institution*


----------



## Kanali (May 14, 2010)

People would kill to get in there


----------



## abcd (May 14, 2010)

One instance where prison life in norway is far better than life in most countries


----------



## Yachiru (May 14, 2010)

Okay, and where's the trap?


----------



## magholor (May 14, 2010)

Man, what do I have to do to get into there?


----------



## beasty (May 14, 2010)

erictheking said:


> *
> A jail cell corridor in the new prison - where half the guards are female as it is believed this decreases aggression
> *


*

Lol... I guess those female guards are working over time alot.*


----------



## roninmedia (May 14, 2010)

That prison is 10x nicer than the shitty apartment or dormitory I was in for college.


----------



## Vanity (May 14, 2010)

Wow, it's like free luxury living basically. :S

You can't make prisons that nice....then people will actually do crimes to live in them. :/


----------



## lucky (May 14, 2010)

that's it!  i'm totally flying to norway and stealin' some potatoes and publicly urinating.


----------



## TSC (May 14, 2010)

HOLY HELL. Leave it to to scandinavians to create some of the most awesome shit out there.


----------



## Nemesis (May 14, 2010)

And yet these countries have some of the lowest crime rates and even fewer reoffenders.  Maybe they ARE on to something with less harsh sentencing and more focus on rehabilitation.


----------



## HawaiianG (May 14, 2010)

damn thats not punishment at all


----------



## abcd (May 14, 2010)

Judge : I sentence u to stay at a better place with better food


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (May 14, 2010)

Nemesis said:


> And yet these countries have some of the lowest crime rates and even fewer reoffenders.  Maybe they ARE on to something with less harsh sentencing and more focus on rehabilitation.



Yeah.

The problem is people who see punishment as having a value in itself. To them any humane treating of prisoners is an offense.


----------



## Spica (May 14, 2010)

If I was a victim, I'd sent the offenders to American or other bad prison. But as a citizen, it's much better for them to be rehabilitated in a humane way, because believe it or not, these rapists, child offenders, thieves and murderers ARE coming back to society sooner or later and I don't want them to toughen up. 

I wasn't really offended when the news came up, but then I googled global reactions to this prison. What surprised me was how many people who believe we have a higher crime rate because of this and reacted negatively, like "would you like your rapist to live there"?


----------



## Dionysus (May 14, 2010)

Wow, a generally wealthy country with lots of jobs has nice prisons. I wonder what the Mexican border would look like if the US did this.  Or, say, Detroit.

If they offered PhD programs, I'd totally go out on a raping and killing spree.


----------



## Vanity (May 14, 2010)

By the way, I forgot to mention but....when I first saw the title of this thread I thought that it said "The nicest person in the world."  I was like "What?" XD


----------



## Lord Yu (May 14, 2010)

Goddammit, I wanna get arrested in Norway.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 14, 2010)

Spica said:


> If I was a victim, I'd sent the offenders to American or other bad prison. But as a citizen, it's much better for them to be rehabilitated in a humane way, because believe it or not, these rapists, child offenders, thieves and murderers ARE coming back to society sooner or later and I don't want them to toughen up.
> 
> I wasn't really offended when the news came up, but then I googled global reactions to this prison. What surprised me was how many people who believe we have a higher crime rate because of this and reacted negatively, like "would you like your rapist to live there"?



The rest of us refuse to have our indignation be so coarsely emasculated.  Seriously though, even for myself; who would see the worth of something like this from a utilitarian perspective, I still feel a bit of lingering disgust for such lavish treatment heaped on the dregs of society while their victims presumably have to simply live with being violated. But I'm inclined to shift the focus onto a wider British perspective of crime instead of myself as an individual for that. 



Nemesis said:


> And yet these countries have some of the lowest crime rates and even fewer reoffenders.  Maybe they ARE on to something with less harsh sentencing and more focus on rehabilitation.


Yeah, but to be fair -- this is basically a total shift (as opposed to 'focus') onto rehabilitation, not doing much for the idea of 'prison as a deterrent'.

Some statistics.



The sexual offence figures are ridiculous.  

I wonder what 'work environment offences' are. Calling your boss a gobshite? 



Dionysus said:


> Wow, a generally wealthy country with lots of jobs has nice prisons. I wonder what the Mexican border would look like if the US did this.  Or, say, Detroit.
> 
> If they offered PhD programs, I'd totally go out on a raping and killing spree.


Do you really think that this kind of prison system is only due to wealth and employment figures though? Independent from that, I think the cultural differences are inescapable.


----------



## Acidblood7 (May 14, 2010)

All aboard the Norway commit a crime bus......That place looks better then my current apartment.


----------



## Momoka (May 14, 2010)

Honestly, that place looks better than my college dormroom. That place is definately a prison. On-going fire bells, noise, gross stuff growing on the ceiling, horrible bathrooms...


----------



## Lupin (May 14, 2010)

This is good. For the soon-to-be prisoners .


----------



## Damaris (May 14, 2010)

solution: lock up all rapists and child murders for life if you can't kill them; and then since they're never going back to society, shit like this won't have to be built.

?15 million? really? i wonder how many people in poverty that could have helped instead of making sure some worthless murderer has his favorite brand of soap.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 14, 2010)

Not everyone can be rehabilitated, these people are therefore exploiting the system and getting away with it.


----------



## Spica (May 14, 2010)

Damaris said:


> solution: lock up all rapists and child murders for life if you can't kill them; and then since they're never going back to society, shit like this won't have to be built.
> 
> ?15 million? really? i wonder how many people in poverty that could have helped instead of making sure some worthless murderer has his favorite brand of soap.



There's no such thing as "poverty" in Norway, so the money should go _somewhere_ right? 

There's also no such thing as a life-sentence. The max punishment is 21 years, which means that they will be back into society, among normal people. 

Born as trash, live as trash, die as trash? 
Or born as "trash", get recycled and come out useful.


----------



## Ceria (May 14, 2010)

humane and prison are two words that should never be spoken in the same sentence, 

private showers, no chance for ass rape, that's a hotel not a prison.


----------



## Floory (May 14, 2010)

This annoys me so much. Why the hell should they get better lives than people who haven't done anything wrong? These are murderers, rapists etc., they should be stripped of their human rights (just like they stripped their victims of their human rights), not given a luxury hotel to stay in at our expense!


----------



## Spica (May 14, 2010)

Floory said:


> This annoys me so much. Why the hell should they get better lives than people who haven't done anything wrong? These are murderers, rapists etc., they should be stripped of their human rights (just like they stripped their victims of their human rights), not given a luxury hotel to stay in at our expense!



Is it really your expense? Do you live in Norway?


----------



## LoboFTW (May 14, 2010)

I have to admit, making it this luxurious is going too far. They should make it as humane as the average hotel at most. This place is better than my house, and surely a lot of poor people would commit petty crimes just so they could go there.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 14, 2010)

abcd said:


> One instance where prison life in norway is far better than life in most countries


----------



## Damaris (May 14, 2010)

Spica said:


> There's no such thing as "poverty" in Norway, so the money should go _somewhere_ right?
> 
> There's also no such thing as a life-sentence. The max punishment is 21 years, which means that they will be back into society, among normal people.
> 
> ...



then i'm sorry, but that's wrong.
you don't give someone who hurts children _at max_ 21 years in a hotel.
you give him the electric chair, so they can't go back into normal society.

you say that as if you honestly think that pedophiles and rapists can be made into decent useful people. protip: they can't.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 14, 2010)

Damaris said:


> then i'm sorry, but that's wrong.
> you don't give someone who hurts children _at max_ 21 years in a hotel.
> you give him the electric chair, so they can't go back into normal society.
> 
> you say that as if you honestly think that pedophiles and rapists can be made into decent useful people. protip: they can't.



STFU. We have a person who works with us who was convicted of rape in the 80s. He did his time and now lives a peaceful life. He paid his debt to the family even though thats something you can never forget. I hate people like you so quick to label someone for a mistake they've done.


----------



## Damaris (May 14, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> STFU. We have a person who works with us who was convicted of rape in the 80s. He did his time and now lives a peaceful life. He paid his debt to the family even though thats something you can never forget. I hate people like you so quick to label someone for a mistake they've done.



why don't you tell that to the person he raped
it's not a mistake
he didn't trip and accidentally spill a drink on her
he took something from her that she can't get back
he did it knowingly
he it it knowing that it was wrong
and your life is never the same after rape, no matter how much you wish it were
he didn't pay his debt 
it's not like you can pay to make the memories go away
how about you not defend someone cruel and evil enough to rape another human being?


----------



## Hand Banana (May 14, 2010)

Damaris said:


> why don't you tell that to the person he raped
> it's not a mistake
> he didn't trip and accidentally spill a drink on her
> he took something from her that she can't get back
> ...



See how you jumped to conclusions. The family and the victim forgave him. WTF you got to say now? Oh they shouldn't have. It was a mistake not an accident. I don't know why you would use those two words in a case like this. Limited vocabulary maybe? i don't know. Humans make mistakes.


----------



## Damaris (May 14, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> See how you jumped to conclusions. The family and the victim forgave him. WTF you got to say now? Oh they shouldn't have. It was a mistake not an accident. I don't know why you would use those two words in a case like this. Limited vocabulary maybe? i don't know. Humans make mistakes.



i'm glad she was strong enough to forgive him
i'm not that strong

how do you mistakenly rape someone? it's a conscious choice.
everyone knows that it's wrong. everyone knows it's an awful
thing to do--so how can someone mistakenly rape someone else? do you want to explain that to me?


----------



## Hand Banana (May 14, 2010)

Damaris said:


> i'm glad she was strong enough to forgive him
> i'm not that strong
> 
> how do you mistakenly rape someone? it's a conscious choice.
> ...



I'm glad you're missing the context of how I'm using the word mistake. It was a mistake to make the decision to rape a person. Was it really that hard to comprehend? If you want I can do a MS doodle for you to understand.


----------



## Damaris (May 14, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> I'm glad you're missing the context of how I'm using the word mistake. It was a mistake to make the decision to rape a person. Was it really that hard to comprehend? If you want I can do a MS doodle for you to understand.



it was a mistake that--i'm going to be perfectly honest--he should have spent the rest of his life paying for. that's like saying "i'm sorry i made the mistake of killing all these people, i regret it, please let me go." too bad; you've got to pay for your actions, and groveling shouldn't get anyone anywhere.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 14, 2010)

Damaris said:


> it was a mistake that--i'm going to be perfectly honest--he should have spent the rest of his life paying for. that's like saying "i'm sorry i made the mistake of killing all these people, i regret it, please let me go." too bad; you've got to pay for your actions, and groveling shouldn't get anyone anywhere.



[YOUTUBE]1Nvdh0FMzr0[/YOUTUBE]​


----------



## Damaris (May 14, 2010)

i'm glad that your concern and compassion for fellow human beings is such that you are willing to defend the lowest of the low

sadly, you are still a dumbass


----------



## Hand Banana (May 14, 2010)

Damaris said:


> i'm glad that your concern and compassion for fellow human beings is such that you are willing to defend the lowest of the low
> 
> sadly, you are still a dumbass



Not my fault you are biased towards rapist and other criminals for mistakes they've made in life. And I guess I am a dumbass because everyday I learn something new. I'm only sorry I'm not a smartass like you.


----------



## Damaris (May 14, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> Not my fault you are biased towards rapist and other criminals for mistakes they've made in life. And I guess I am a dumbass because everyday I learn something new. I'm only sorry I'm not a smartass like you.



imagine that
i'm biased towards terrible people who do terrible things
most of whom never show regret or remorse
fancy that, why would i ever think they were awful people?


----------



## Mael (May 14, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> Not my fault you are biased towards rapist and other criminals for mistakes they've made in life. And I guess I am a dumbass because everyday I learn something new. I'm only sorry I'm not a smartass like you.



Case by case basis.  Some clearly show no remorse for the lives they shattered.  Seriously, why should they be pampered with a life like this?

And HB, most of the time, rape is planned.  It isn't just "a mistake."  A mistake would be accidentally running over someone while drunk.  Rape is typically pre-planned.  You don't work four years as a Unit Victim Advocate studying sexual assault and rape and get the impression that the guilty simply committed a "mistake."  Alcohol or not, they crossed the lines and they should be punished.



Damaris said:


> imagine that
> i'm biased towards terrible people who do terrible things
> most of whom never show regret or remorse
> fancy that, why would i ever think they were awful people?



I see no fault to this logic.  Psych screen the perps and see if they're even worth trying to rehabilitate.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 14, 2010)

Damaris said:


> imagine that
> i'm biased towards terrible people who do terrible things
> most of whom never show regret or remorse
> fancy that, why would i ever think they were awful people?



So are we done yet? I mean I was hoping to end our conversation with that snappy comeback. But apparently not. How is your day going other than our conversation?



Mael said:


> Case by case basis.  Some clearly show no remorse for the lives they shattered.  Seriously, why should they be pampered with a life like this?
> 
> And HB, most of the time, rape is planned.  It isn't just "a mistake."  A mistake would be accidentally running over someone while drunk.  Rape is typically pre-planned.  You don't work four years as a Unit Victim Advocate studying sexual assault and rape and get the impression that the guilty simply committed a "mistake."  Alcohol or not, they crossed the lines and they should be punished.



Missing the point mael. Instead of mistake since some don't seem to understand that word, lets say bad decision. It was my mistake to use mistake in that context.


----------



## Spica (May 14, 2010)

Damaris, it's people like you who make others lose faith in humanity. Don't mistake vengeance for justice. 

I am no goody-two-shoes (and HIGHLY doubt that Hand Banana is Mother Theresa, but goddammit, he has _common sense_). You are even lower than the people you consider as low. 

Fancy that, I do believe in the existence of awful people. Doesn't mean I want to toast you, but do I think you need some therapy so you know where you went wrong with your way of thinking.


----------



## Damaris (May 14, 2010)

i'm lower than rapists for thinking that rapists deserve to die?
that's an interesting train of thought you've got there.


----------



## Mael (May 14, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> Missing the point mael. Instead of mistake since some don't seem to understand that word, lets say bad decision. It was my mistake to use mistake in that context.



Your mistake was that you decided to wear what you're wearing today. 



But yes, bad decision is a better usage of English.  Still...case by case basis.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 14, 2010)

Damaris said:


> i'm lower than rapists for thinking that rapists deserve to die?
> that's an interesting train of thought you've got there.



Who are you to say someone should die? What power do you wield that determines people's life?



Mael said:


> Your mistake was that you decided to wear what you're wearing today.
> 
> 
> 
> But yes, bad decision is a better usage of English.  Still...case by case basis.



I disagree Mael. My wording was not a mistake. Its how you interpret the word. Maybe our interpretation of the word is different, but my usage of the word was in context to what I was saying.


----------



## Damaris (May 14, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> Who are you to say someone should die? What power do you wield that determines people's life?



if you're honestly debating this over rapists, you have problems that just talking on the internet aren't going to fix.


----------



## Mael (May 14, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> I disagree Mael. My wording was not a mistake. Its how you interpret the word. Maybe our interpretation of the word is different, but my usage of the word was in context to what I was saying.



Yeah...and that's the difference indeed.  I measure the intent of the perpetrator so if they think what they did wasn't a mistake, then it wasn't.  You only feel guilty if you got caught in many situations like those.  It was a mistake from an outsider's POV, but if someone doesn't feel sorry, then the most important person loses the game to rehabilitation.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 14, 2010)

Damaris said:


> if you're honestly debating this over rapists, you have problems that just talking on the internet aren't going to fix.



But that doesn't answer the question. He did the crime, he served his time. He paid retributions to the family. I guess by your order he should die?



Mael said:


> Yeah...and that's the difference indeed.  I measure the intent of the perpetrator so if they think what they did wasn't a mistake, then it wasn't.  You only feel guilty if you got caught in many situations like those.  It was a mistake from an outsider's POV, but if someone doesn't feel sorry, then the most important person loses the game to rehabilitation.



Regardless if you feel remorse for what you did, a mistake is a mistake no matter how you look at it. Its what you justify that mistake as that makes a difference.


----------



## Spica (May 14, 2010)

Damaris said:


> i'm lower than rapists for thinking that rapists deserve to die?
> that's an interesting train of thought you've got there.



Yes, it's interesting, _thank you_. 

No matter how much you want it, _rapists don't die_. After prison, they're coming back to society. They're gonna live amongst people like you and me, and it feels much safer knowing that they've received treatment so they won't do their crimes again. 

You're saying that they don't deserve any other treatment but death. At least give them a chance for retribution.


----------



## Gino (May 14, 2010)

Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> By the way, I forgot to mention but....when I first saw the title of this thread I thought that it said "The nicest person in the world."  I was like "What?" XD




Me too 

back on topic those are some nice ass prison's shouldn't be a reason to be angry while you're locked up there lol..............


----------



## Utopia Realm (May 14, 2010)

Its sad that the prison is way better than my house but then again its okay I guess.

I wonder if they have 360, Wii or PS3 over there...


----------



## Dionysus (May 14, 2010)

erictheking said:


> Do you really think that this kind of prison system is only due to wealth and employment figures though? Independent from that, I think the cultural differences are inescapable.


No.  It is largely due to this though.  First off, Norway wouldn't be able to afford it if it wasn't rich.  Secondly, the theory behind this prison system would likely fail if there was greater poverty in Norway and less opportunity than there is.  (The most slovenly and uneducated Norwegians that I know have no difficulty finding work; work that pays well.)  The culture might propose the solution, but there are other factors that dictate whether the solution works.  (And, also, whether a culture survives too.)

I agree in rehabilitation.  That aspect is rather sound.  The luxury portion of this prison is where the regional disparities cripple the implementation elsewhere.


----------



## Ugeda (May 14, 2010)

Dionysus said:


> (The most slovenly and uneducated Norwegians that I know have no difficulty finding work; work that pays well.)



Work that pays well, but not by norwegian standards. Most uneducated people end up in what others look at as "failing" jobs, and are the kind of people your mom tells you not to be like. Not very nice, is it? The expense level in Norway is extremely high - come visit, and you'll know what I'm talking about. So the jobs that most "slovenly and uneducated norwegians" end up in aren't all that nice.

Just wanted to say that.


----------



## xDeathxDiexDayx (May 14, 2010)

That's not even prison. . . more like a luxury hotel.


----------



## Fran (May 14, 2010)

> Home away from home: One of the private cells at Norway's new Halden Prison - which appears to be nicer than most university dormitory rooms



He's got that fucking right!


----------



## Adonis (May 14, 2010)

I'll point out you guys are adopting the stance of the Daily Mail which should always be cause for doubt.

If you want prison to be nothing but a playground for your impersonal vengeance, I suppose this is awful.

I personally don't see the benefit of mistreating prisoners, or facillitating mistreatment by other prisoners, under the pretense of "showing them the wrongness of" such behavior. If they can be rehabilitated, rehabilitate them. Creating an environment of overt hostility and abuse among prisoners is counterproductive to this and engenders more criminal behavior. If they can't, lock them up for life to keep them away from the general public.

I've found, though, that people get pleasure out of inflicting pain within contexts they deem justified. Not being filled with impotent fury, I can honestly care less what happens to criminals after they're locked up.

Before someone asks, if my loved one was killed would I be out for blood then? Yes. *I'd be wrong* and I'd hope society would tell me as much and not enable me during my time of distress.


----------



## Dionysus (May 14, 2010)

Ugeda said:


> Work that pays well, but not by norwegian standards. Most uneducated people end up in what others look at as "failing" jobs, and are the kind of people your mom tells you not to be like. Not very nice, is it? The expense level in Norway is extremely high - come visit, and you'll know what I'm talking about. So the jobs that most "slovenly and uneducated norwegians" end up in aren't all that nice.
> 
> Just wanted to say that.


I've been to Norway.  Spent some time there.  I know the cost of living is high, and I, similar to so many Norwegians went to Sweden to get groceries, alcohol, etc.  The smartest of these slovenly and uneducated (and I never said dumb) people works for a while in Norway to save money to flee the country for as long as possible.  (I have a positive view of the place.)

My point was, it's not hard to find a job that pays a "living wage", if you want one.  Not true everywhere.


----------



## Ugeda (May 14, 2010)

Dionysus said:


> I've been to Norway.  Spent some time there.  I know the cost of living is high, and I, similar to so many Norwegians went to Sweden to get groceries, alcohol, etc.  The smartest of these slovenly and uneducated (and I never said dumb) people works for a while in Norway to save money to flee the country for as long as possible.  (I have a positive view of the place.)
> 
> My point was, it's not hard to find a job that pays a "living wage", if you want one.  Not true everywhere.



Not gonna say anything against you on that, it's true.


----------



## horsdhaleine (May 14, 2010)

erictheking said:


> Some statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does this refer to Norwegian criminals alone or to criminals world-wide?

What kind of criminals Norwegians do have? People keep on mentioning rapists but there are other crimes that can put you in prison. Rape is not the only crime in the world.

I find it a little too luxurious. (Rock-climbing wall? I want one!) Humane treatment is imperative but at the same time, I don't think we should spoiled them - esp those who committed grave crimes. Then again Norway is wealthy and has a different culture. What do I know...


----------



## Le Pirate (May 14, 2010)

Yhat's nicer than the apartment I'm currently living in.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 14, 2010)

Dionysus said:


> No.  It is largely due to this though.  First off, Norway wouldn't be able to afford it if it wasn't rich.  Secondly, the theory behind this prison system would likely fail if there was greater poverty in Norway and less opportunity than there is.  (The most slovenly and uneducated Norwegians that I know have no difficulty finding work; work that pays well.)  The culture might propose the solution, but there are other factors that dictate whether the solution works.  (And, also, whether a culture survives too.)
> 
> I agree in rehabilitation.  That aspect is rather sound.  The luxury portion of this prison is where the regional disparities cripple the implementation elsewhere.



I'd agree with the idea that this luxurious system would probably be ineffective in countries with greater regional disparities -- but I just find it very difficult to imagine the 'luxury factor' being justified in a more equitable UK or US for example. It is basically compassion for violent criminals; who by the previously defined condition, are living in a society with plentiful employment opportunities. I think that Norwegians would say "these people have become violent, because they didn't get enough positive reinforcement from the rest of us" - which to me, is the theory behind this prison system. While we are seemingly more likely to say "violent people living in an economically equitable society have only themselves to blame", which then obviously wouldn't justify this luxury.

It's clearly possible that these 'cultural differences' would dissolve in the event of achieving more equitable societies.. I don't know.



Adonis said:


> I'll point out you guys are adopting the stance of the Daily Mail which should always be cause for doubt.
> 
> If you want prison to be nothing but a playground for your impersonal vengeance, I suppose this is awful.
> 
> ...


What do you think of the justification of this prison system though, in its proper context? 

I realise that you're just countering the popular view, but it's obvious that this system is not properly described by "[not] creating an environment of overt hostility" - it is actively creating a luxurious, soothing environment -- which obviously has financial implications for everyone, after the fact of them being locked up.



Spica said:


> There's no such thing as "poverty" in Norway, so the money should go _somewhere_ right?


This is not a slight on you individually, but I think societies in general are narrow-minded. They don't accept that by virtue of having the ability to deal with world poverty, they have a responsibility towards it. It is something like 8 million humans a year that die (preventably) for lack of material necessities. Yet rather than help, people feel more inclined to simply hoard cash or spend extravagantly on their own communities. It's difficult to say whether this kind of rehabilitation qualifies as being 'narrow-minded' in the bigger picture. Probably so..



horsdhaleine said:


> Does this refer to Norwegian criminals alone or to criminals world-wide?
> 
> What kind of criminals Norwegians do have? People keep on mentioning rapists but there are other crimes that can put you in prison. Rape is not the only crime in the world.
> 
> I find it a little too luxurious. (Rock-climbing wall? I want one!) Humane treatment is imperative but at the same time, I don't think we should spoiled them - esp those who committed grave crimes. Then again Norway is wealthy and has a different culture. What do I know...



That's in Norway. The number of sexual offences are shown by that scratching of white above the red and below the blue.


----------



## Ennoea (May 14, 2010)

Fuckign stupidity. Humane? Put them in a shitty cell so they can think about what they did and deter others.


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (May 14, 2010)

Damn That's a whole lot better then my place!


----------



## Adonis (May 14, 2010)

erictheking said:


> What do you think of the justification of this prison system though, in its proper context?



I *don't* think this particular prison is justified because they've overshot "humane" by quite the margin and have delved into outright luxury. 

In general, though, I'm not the type who believes in making prisons animal cages because all you get out of it is, unsurprisingly, animals. I simply don't get any sort of closure out of inflicting pain onto others and a crime that reduces its victims and others to barbarity is doubly tragic.

That said, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the methods of a country with such a low crime and recidivism rate even though I'll admit it may turn out to be a consequence of something other than their penal system.



> I realise that you're just countering the popular view, but it's obvious that this system is not properly described by "[not] creating an environment of overt hostility" - it is actively creating a luxurious, soothing environment -- which obviously has financial implications for everyone, after the fact of them being locked up.



I resent the implication I'm merely being contrary for the sake of being contrary. Though considering you thought the stance I was defending was, "Any prison without a racquetball court is cruel!" I ought to be glad you gave me the benefit of the doubt.

I didn't make it clear, but I was talking against the "prison rape is a must" crowd, not claiming this was the logical conclusion of "humane." It's not, and I think we'll all agree that rock-climbing and other similar activities are ridiculous.

Likewise, I don't hope that such an expensive thing becomes mainstream. "Humane" is my goal. Nothing more and nothing less.




> This is not a slight on you individually, but I think societies in general are narrow-minded. They don't accept that by virtue of having the ability to deal with world poverty, they have a responsibility towards it. It is something like 8 million humans a year that die (preventably) for lack of material necessities. Yet rather than help, people feel more inclined to simply hoard cash or spend extravagantly on their own communities. It's difficult to say whether this kind of rehabilitation qualifies as being 'narrow-minded' in the bigger picture. Probably so..



Again, I never said this prison was necessary or even a step in the right direction. I was merely arguing against the "we should kill all prisoners/I want them to suffer" crowd. I would label this prison under "fiscal excess," but if Norway feels they have the money and it'll be beneficial somehow, that's on them.


----------



## Patchouli (May 15, 2010)

Well, I see a way to get a nice cheap extended vacation


----------



## dreams lie (May 15, 2010)

Adonis, did you always hold this particular view of justice?  You do not believe punishment, and you are incredibly generous with extending rights to beasts that hardly be called human.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 15, 2010)

Adonis said:


> I *don't* think this particular prison is justified because they've overshot "humane" by quite the margin and have delved into outright luxury.
> 
> In general, though, I'm not the type who believes in making prisons animal cages because all you get out of it is, unsurprisingly, animals. I simply don't get any sort of closure out of inflicting pain onto others and a crime that reduces its victims and others to barbarity is doubly tragic.
> 
> That said, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the methods of a country with such a low crime and recidivism rate even though I'll admit it may turn out to be a consequence of something other than their penal system.


I'd agree with that; although it should not be too hard to test whether the recidivism rate is as a consequence of the penal system or not.




> I resent the implication I'm merely being contrary for the sake of being contrary. Though considering you thought the stance I was defending was, "Any prison without a racquetball court is cruel!" I ought to be glad you gave me the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> I didn't make it clear, but I was talking against the "prison rape is a must" crowd, not claiming this was the logical conclusion of "humane." It's not, and I think we'll all agree that rock-climbing and other similar activities are ridiculous.
> 
> Likewise, I don't hope that such an expensive thing becomes mainstream. "Humane" is my goal. Nothing more and nothing less.


I wasn't accusing you of being contrary for the sake of it. What I was trying to articulate was that your post didn't actually include your opinion on whether this kind of prison system was justified, and that I thought this was probably because you were trying to address the 'bloodthirsty' mob.



> Again, I never said this prison was necessary or even a step in the right direction. I was merely arguing against the "we should kill all prisoners/I want them to suffer" crowd. I would label this prison under "fiscal excess," but if Norway feels they have the money and it'll be beneficial somehow, that's on them.


But I wasn't addressing you was I!  I quoted Spica's post. 

I'll say: I can concede that in the context of normal, self-interested societies they have a right to freedom in doing what they think is best for their own society - but I think that if you weigh up the merits of having a slightly safer country by way of spoiling your criminals (in an already low-crime nation) against the merits of helping foreign people in dire need of food, water and health care, there is really only one ethical choice.


----------



## Adonis (May 15, 2010)

dreams lie said:


> Adonis, did you always hold this particular view of justice?  You do not believe punishment, and you are incredibly generous with extending rights to beasts that hardly be called human.



Yes and no.

It's not that I don't believe in punishment; it's just that it's hard to quantify "fair" punishment without going the "eye for an eye" route which I despise. Generally speaking, justice tends to be a lot more fickle and arbitrary than we like to think. I've also noticed that people support the current penal system regardless of when it fails to serve the functions they claim it does. For example, the idea of deterence based on harsher sentence proves lacking.

I haven't always held this view of justice, but I never really gave the penal system much thought before reaching this stance. Ok, that came out wrong but you know what I mean. I _can_ say that I've never been as reactionary as others in regard to criminals. The "They should rip his balls of and stick him with hot pokers!" talk has always seemed at worst artificial and at best impotent posturing.

And criminals are humans no matter how heinous they are. Disregarding groups of people because they represent aspects of human nature we like to believe is beyond us is wishful thinking. It's always easier to commit heinous acts when dehumanizing people, though, eh? I'm sure the criminals do the same thing.



erictheking said:


> I wasn't accusing you of being contrary for the sake of it. What I was trying to articulate was that your post didn't actually include your opinion on whether this kind of prison system was justified, and that I thought this was probably because you were trying to address the 'bloodthirsty' mob.



Oh, my mistake.

You're right, I didn't feel the need to include my opinion on the prison. 



> But I wasn't addressing you was I!  I quoted Spica's post.
> 
> I'll say: I can concede that in the context of normal, self-interested societies they have a right to freedom in doing what they think is best for their own society - but I think that if you weigh up the merits of having a slightly safer country by way of spoiling your criminals (in an already low-crime nation) against the merits of helping foreign people in dire need of food, water and health care, there is really only one ethical choice.



True, but you could say that about any expenditure that's not essential. You bought an iPod while children are starving in Africa! This does look like spoiling criminals, which is idiotic, but what can ya do about it? Just wait and see if it blows up in their face or not.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 15, 2010)

Adonis is a name I can trust. I guarantee it and people know that even if they don’t know me any more than they know the mod for the NF cafe.


----------



## dreams lie (May 15, 2010)

Adonis said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> It's not that I don't believe in punishment; it's just that it's hard to quantify "fair" punishment without going the "eye for an eye" route which I despise. Generally speaking, justice tends to be a lot more fickle and arbitrary than we like to think. I've also noticed that people support the current penal system regardless of when it fails to serve the functions they claim it does.
> 
> I haven't always held this view of justice, but I never really gave the penal system much thought before reaching this stance. I can say that I've never been as reactionary as others in regard to criminals. The "They should rip his balls of and stick him with hot pokers!" talk has always seemed at worst artificial and at best impotent posturing.



The current system is a drain on taxpayers' money, and that is all I really have to say on the subject.  It seems horribly twisted that society must finance the expenses of the criminals that threaten to run it to the ground in the first place.  And while justice is subjective, I still see some fundamental concepts.  I do not believe that sentience is the sole prerequisite for liberty, or at least the only ingredient required to maintain its sanctity.  If you are a threat to society, there is, in fact, a greater good, and society should react and respond by removing the threat.  I am aware people make mistakes, but if you are a murderer or rapist, how many chances could we afford to grant you?  

What you detest, the sense of loathing and intolerance towards dangerous outsiders, is reactionary, but I am inclined to believe that it is passed down by evolution.  If all criminals were to be disabled in a manner so they could never again threaten society, then it would be a different matter.  There would be no reason for us to maim them, to imprison them, to kill them, etc. Asides from this base, "barbaric" view of justice, I also fancy what Adams Smith advocated:  the victim(s) or the families of the victim(s) should decide the punishment.  They could choose whatever that grants them closure.  



> And criminals are humans no matter how heinous they are. Disregarding groups of people because they represent aspects of human nature we like to believe is beyond us is wishful thinking.



Now that's a thought.  I'm the idealist here?


----------



## Adonis (May 15, 2010)

dreams lie said:


> The current system is a drain on taxpayers' money, and that is all I really have to say on the subject.  It seems horribly twisted that society must finance the expenses of the criminals that threaten to run it to the ground in the first place.



There is no just alternative. Killing them all indiscriminately isn't an option and we've already been through the costs of the death penalty. If you think of it as "feeding criminals" then it is a twisted thought for taxpayers, though prisons don't seem to be all that much of a drain given how in love we've become with building them since the '80s, but if you think of it as "keeping dangerous people off the streets and/or rehabilitating them" then it seems as integral as building roads.



> And while justice is subjective, I still see some fundamental concepts.  I do not believe that sentience is the sole prerequisite for liberty, or at least the only ingredient required to maintain its sanctity.  If you are a threat to society, there is, in fact, a greater good, and society should react and respond by removing the threat.  I am aware people make mistakes, but if you are a murderer or rapist, how many chances could we afford to grant you?



Locking someone up for life isn't affording them a second chance. If they can be rehabilitated, they'll get a second chance. If they can't, they'll be locked up for the rest of their lives; not out of malice, but in the same way a lunatic is locked up in an asylum.



> What you detest, the sense of loathing and intolerance towards dangerous outsiders, is reactionary, but I am inclined to believe that it is passed down by evolution.  If all criminals were to be disabled in a manner so they could never again threaten society, then it would be a different matter.  There would be no reason for us to maim them, to imprison them, to kill them, etc.



Incarceration tends to disable them for all intents and purposes. Yet, people bask in the idea that their punishment doesn't end there but will include daily shower rapes and degradation. If our penal system condones prisoners being raped by others, have that listed as part of the sentence. Otherwise, don't sentence someone to prison yet enable rape as an unofficial punishment because "Bah, they deserve it!"



> Asides from this base, "barbaric" view of justice, I also fancy what Adams Smith advocated:  the victim(s) or the families of the victim(s) should decide the punishment.  They could choose whatever that grants them closure.



That wouldn't solve anything. Victims, especially in the throes of grief, are as prone to hyperbolic reactions as anyone else. You'd get torture and death every time. For a criminal to kill someone is tragic. For it to compel "normal" people to the same behavior is even worse. Why let a horrible act defile everything it touches? Society isn't meant to be a conduit for personal vengeance.




> Now that's a thought.  I'm the idealist here?



If you believe "humanity" precludes certain vile behaviors, yes, you're being idealistic.


----------



## Mello Yellow (May 15, 2010)

Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> By the way, I forgot to mention but....when I first saw the title of this thread I thought that it said "The nicest person in the world."  I was like "What?" XD



Eheh...me too. *But* now that I've been sucked into this thread...


I'm not interested in getting involved in the rehabilitation/punishment debate 'cause I'm too fucking lazy but, I will say that anybody who can even joke about actively seeking a stint in this place has no idea what it is like to have your freedom taken away. I've never been to jail, but I *did* earn myself a stay in the psych ward at a hospital after a particularly nasty event. I was there for a few weeks and let me tell you...not being able to leave or do whatever the fuck I wanted was far worse than you can imagine. After the first couple of days I was alright and the crazy stigma did not mean shit to me...but, just the fact that I couldn't fucking leave...couldn't smoke a cigarette whenever I wanted...could only see my friends and family during set times...etc, etc., etc.  And I wasn't even being punished! The psych ward was far nicer than that place in most regards (no gym tho' ).


Anyhoo, all that just to say: They *are* being punished. One may believe that they aren't being punished enough, perhaps, but, one cannot claim that they are getting off scott free.


----------



## Yasha (May 15, 2010)

I thought that title was held by the Austrian 5-star prison?


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## DeLarge (May 15, 2010)

Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> By the way, I forgot to mention but....when I first saw the title of this thread I thought that it said "The nicest person in the world."  I was like "What?" XD



Same here....Hobos will now start stealing shit to get into prison , so they can live a life of luxury , hell the only thing they are missing is some women...Wait...shit


----------



## Spica (May 15, 2010)

erictheking said:
			
		

> I realise that you're just countering the popular view, but it's obvious that this system is not properly described by "[not] creating an environment of overt hostility" - it is actively creating a luxurious, soothing environment -- which obviously has financial implications for everyone, after the fact of them being locked up.
> 
> 
> This is not a slight on you individually, but I think societies in general are narrow-minded. They don't accept that by virtue of having the ability to deal with world poverty, they have a responsibility towards it. It is something like 8 million humans a year that die (preventably) for lack of material necessities. Yet rather than help, people feel more inclined to simply hoard cash or spend extravagantly on their own communities. It's difficult to say whether this kind of rehabilitation qualifies as being 'narrow-minded' in the bigger picture. Probably so..



Financial implications for anyone but _Norwegians_. 

I am also very confused to what everyone calls "extravagant", "lavish" and "luxurious". It might look better than prisons outside Scandinavia (and Austria), but to be honest, it doesn't look any different from a newly renovated school/dorm/other Scandinavian facilities. It looks like my little sister's elementary school (only with [more] flat screens). 

I haven't met a single Norwegian who has complained about their tax money being used to this (we did complain about an artwork in Oslo which resemble a wrecked ship). Most of these critics come from Americans and British (who, I remind) _aren't_ paying for anything but the kind of prison they apparently _want_. Luxurious didn't even cross the average Norwegian's mind before global media covered this story. 

Culture clash whatsoever, it says a lot about greed when people ask why they can't get a rock-climbing wall when "lowlife gets it". I may be naive, but being raised in a country where inequality is frowned upon (e.g. "Don't think you're better than anyone"), giving criminals what everyone else have is the right thing to do. (Yes, rock-climbing walls are present in most Norwegian schools.)

It must be really selfish in other people's eyes that we only give poor countries 1% (around 26.2 billion) of our GDP to fight poverty (more than any other country in the world, mind you). 



dreams lie said:


> If all criminals were to be disabled in a manner so they could never again threaten society, then it would be a different matter.  There would be no reason for us to maim them, to imprison them, to kill them, etc. Asides from this base, "barbaric" view of justice, I also fancy what Adams Smith advocated:  the victim(s) or the families of the victim(s) should decide the punishment.  They could choose whatever that grants them closure.



Like in _Saudi-Arabia_?


----------



## mystictrunks (May 15, 2010)

Don't see what all the fuss is about, especially from non-Norwegians.

The price seems about right for a prison of its size. As far as the luxurious setting goes, eh. Prisons should, in theory, be for reforming people. The prisoners still have very little freedom and that's the main form of punishment for prisoners correct?


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 15, 2010)

Adonis said:


> True, but you could say that about any expenditure that's not essential. You bought an iPod while children are starving in Africa!


Yes, I believe quite strongly that it is immoral for a relatively rich person (the majority of people living in first-world countries) to buy things that one doesn't really need, and that it is morally obligatory to give some of your own money to charities that help those in dire poverty. 



Spica said:


> I am also very confused to what everyone calls "extravagant", "lavish" and "luxurious". It might look better than prisons outside Scandinavia (and Austria), but to be honest, it doesn't look any different from a newly renovated school/dorm/other Scandinavian facilities. It looks like my little sister's elementary school (only with [more] flat screens).


Are you taking the piss? Our newly renovated schools do not and are not expected to look anything like our prisons. Students do not have their own personal flat screen TV's, bathrooms and fridges, let alone prison inmates. Do you find it that difficult to imagine such a country where that is the case?



> I haven't met a single Norwegian who has complained about their tax money being used to this (we did complain about an artwork in Oslo which resemble a wrecked ship). Most of these critics come from Americans and British (who, I remind) aren't paying for anything but the kind of prison they apparently want. Luxurious didn't even cross the average Norwegian's mind before global media covered this story.
> 
> Culture clash whatsoever, it says a lot about greed when people ask why they can't get a rock-climbing wall when "lowlife gets it". I may be naive, but being raised in a country where inequality is frowned upon (e.g. "Don't think you're better than anyone"), giving criminals what everyone else have is the right thing to do. (Yes, rock-climbing walls are present in most Norwegian schools.)


Yes, we've already all agreed that Norwegians have more money than sense. 

I don't think there should be any kind of moral obligation to 'give criminals what everyone else has' in terms of facilities as some matter of "human rights". If it works out for the best in terms of reducing re-offending, then that is another matter that can be judged. 

Our schools don't have rock-climbing walls (what are adult prisoners doing on them anyway? weirdos!) and it's certainly not greedy to want certain public services exclusively for law-abiding citizens.. it's absurd to think it is. 



> It must be really selfish in other people's eyes that we only give poor countries 1% (around 26.2 billion) of our GDP to fight poverty (more than any other country in the world, mind you).


My point about alleviating poverty was not unique to Norway, yet you seem to be personally offended. It's an ethical obligation that no-one in the first-world is paying much heed to. It's an expansion of the imagination of 'everyone' and 'we' that you keep referring to; instead of help applying only to Norwegians it would ideally apply to humans -- particularly the approximate 1.2 billion of them who are living on less than $2 a day, and the 8 million who die every year from lack of *basic * things like food, water and health care -- the humans who need our help the most.

You can feel proud of your country all you want; I'm not talking about regular development aid, everyone pays that through their taxes although it's not proved to be particularly effective over the years. In fact some of the poorest areas have gotten poorer. 

As an extension of the idea that individually we waste money on things we don't need when we could have used that money to save lives -- by investing so much (relatively) into prison facilities, you are forgoing (at least) tens of thousands of lives. If you actually think that is justifiable, you have to say that reducing already low crime rates (with £1 million murals) in Norway is more important than many tens of thousands of lives in Asia and Africa, which is an indefensible position.


----------



## Xyloxi (May 15, 2010)

I don't see the problem with this, it isn't harming anyone and Norwegians can spend their tax money as they wish. I highly doubt there is such poverty in Norway, having a low population density and oil coming out of their ears so I don't see how people can compare it to somewhere like the US or to a lesser extent the UK. 

If a penal system isn't based around rehabilitation, then what is it supposed to do? Having a punishment based system is morally wrong and impractical, as it institutionalises the criminal lifestyle into people and it makes it far harder for them to live normally once they get out of prison.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 15, 2010)

I thought this thread said "nicest person in the world". But this is something so much more retarded, why the fuck should a prison be that nice?


----------



## Ugeda (May 15, 2010)

erictheking said:


> Are you taking the piss? Our newly renovated schools do not and are not expected to look anything like our prisons. Students do not have their own personal flat screen TV's, bathrooms and fridges, let alone prison inmates. Do you find it that difficult to imagine such a country where that is the case?



You make it sound like you're from Norway? (It looks like Spica was talking about Norwegian schools and prisons.) 

Wherever you are from, it might not be the case that prisons and schools should have the same standard. But here, most newly built/newly renovated public buildings are expected to have the same good standard.. No matter what purpose the building serves. (Be it a cinema, a school, a hospital, a prison..)




erictheking said:


> I don't think there should be any kind of moral obligation to 'give criminals what everyone else has' in terms of facilities as some matter of "human rights". If it works out for the best in terms of reducing re-offending, then that is another matter that can be judged.



Of course there is no moral obligation to give criminals whatever everyone else has - and they don't get that. The main restriction on prisoners are freedom, and choice. But doesn't it make sense that if you make the stay in the prison bearable, and give them rehabilitation, they will come out as better citizens? 

I certainly don't think that a completely low-standard prison system where it serves the purpose of punishment so that the victims can 'find peace' by knowing that the offender is being punished is any good compared to rehabilitation so that they can become a better/normal citizen. The punishment system is just plain evil, and that makes the victims and the state almost as 'criminal' as the criminals themselves.

(I almost felt like drawing up the middle-age custom of "Blodhemn" that was common practice in Norway during the Viking-age.. your idea of a punishment-based system reminds me of this in a way.)



erictheking said:


> Our schools don't have rock-climbing walls (what are adult prisoners doing on them anyway? weirdos!) and it's certainly not greedy to want certain public services exclusively for law-abiding citizens.. it's absurd to think it is.



Janteloven, deeply rooted in the Norwegian citizens mind from kindergarden-age, says that you are not better than anyone else. 

In a country in the world tops when it comes to equality, do you really find it so weird that we don't think the way you, wherever you are from, do by saying "I'm better than you because you made a mistake in life, so I get a rock climbing wall and you don't."

I think if a person is sitting in a prison with little freedom and choice for the next 20 years, them getting a rock-climbing wall isn't that big a sacrifice at all for a normal citizen. They might have done something horrible, but that is no reason to deny them a little enjoyment in the long years of containment.

I'd like to add that my school HAS a rock-climbing wall available. As does most schools around here.  




erictheking said:


> As an extension of the idea that individually we waste money on things we don't need when we could have used that money to save lives -- by investing so much (relatively) into prison facilities, you are forgoing (at least) tens of thousands of lives. If you actually think that is justifiable, you have to say that reducing already low crime rates (with ?1 million murals) in Norway is more important than many tens of thousands of lives in Asia and Africa, which is an indefensible position.



Dude, if the world was to be like you want it to be - we wouldn't need countries and separate economies. We'd just share everything with everyone. I bet that would be a wonderful world.

Just saying that the leaders of countries think of their own people's well being before people 5000 miles away. It's just the way politics and the whole country/state thing works. I'm not saying it's ideal, but it's working, in a way.

If you have some genius way to make poverty disappear, and still keep the citizens of "industrialized countries" happy, suggest it to the politicians. I'd like to see that work out.


----------



## horsdhaleine (May 15, 2010)

> I am also very confused to what everyone calls "extravagant", "lavish" and "luxurious". It might look better than prisons outside Scandinavia (and Austria), but to be honest, it doesn't look any different from a newly renovated school/dorm/other Scandinavian facilities. It looks like my little sister's elementary school (only with [more] flat screens).


My child, people find it luxurious because for the majority of us, length of time in prison = appropriate punishment for your crime. For most of us, prisons are not supposed to look like your little sister's elementary school nor is it supposed to look like any dorm or school.* A lot don't see it as a rehabilitation center but rather as a place for punishment, a place where one's exercise of certain personal liberties are halted and deprived - and that kind of facilities doesn't make it look like one.*

I'm not saying others are right and you are wrong. I think most people's reaction is more like shock and exaggerated surprise than anger and whatnot. You guys have a different definition of what a prison should be like and its role in your society. You have a different idea of punishment. By looking at the pictures, we see Norwegian criminals as lucky. Japan is a well-off country (despite being in a recession during the lost decade, they're still better off compared to others). Tokyo is one of the most expensive cities. Do you have any idea what a court trial, police detention and capital punishment in that well-off country are like? It is possible to be detained without being informed of the charges against the person. Around unlucky 90,000 criminals in a year get detained in a police custody in a 20-day period. forced confessions against defendants are not uncommon, and may even be de rigueur. Criminals would be under 24-hr surveillance and are not allowed to walk around freely and mingle with other prisoners. Showers - once a week for only 15 minutes. This Daiyo Kangoku system is strictly not in accord with the International Covenant of Civil and Political Right (ICCPR) that they ratified back in 1979. Those awaiting death penalty have it worse since they are kept in a 5m2 cell and they are informed of their death penalty just one or two hours before their execution. This is what ordinary people like me would consider highly inhumane. What is typically considered humane by ordinary people like me would be something like what the ICCPR in Article 14, 3b and Human Rights Committee have decided - _that facilities must include access to documents and other evidence which the accused requires to prepare his case, as well as the opportunity to engage and communicate with counsel_. That among other basic rights. 

Now, the Japanese judicial system is rather an extreme example. I just wanted to give you an idea how different it could be elsewhere. You can gripe endlessly about Norwegian tax-payers? money and all. But the issue goes beyond money. (Just because some people do not live country as wealthy as Norway doesn?t mean they are obsessed about wealth and luxurious life, mind you.) It is about the idea of prisons and punishment.  Don?t be surprised if a number of people would overreact to such typical Norwegian facilities like the ones earlier mentioned. It is indeed different. It?s not surprising if it would catch the attention of international media. That janteloven or that idea that no one is better than you in Norway is pretty rare in a lot of places esp in countries where societies are highly hierarchical. 

Anyway, this is my first time to encounter this idea of Janteloven. I find it highly amusing. Credits to Ugeda for mentioning it. Thanks!



> Culture clash whatsoever, it says a lot about greed when people ask why they can't get a rock-climbing wall when "lowlife gets it". I may be naive, but being raised in a country where inequality is frowned upon (e.g. "Don't think you're better than anyone"), giving criminals what everyone else have is the right thing to do. (Yes, rock-climbing walls are present in most Norwegian schools.)


A rock-climbing wall would not fit in my living room. Yes, I'm sad.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 15, 2010)

Here's what a prison should look like: 









You're not supposed to be comfortable, you're not there because you're good and you're not there to learn, you're there to be punished for a crime done.


----------



## Spica (May 15, 2010)

*sigh*



erictheking said:


> Are you taking the piss? Our newly renovated schools do not and are not expected to look anything like our prisons. Students do not have their own personal flat screen TV's, bathrooms and fridges, let alone prison inmates. Do you find it that difficult to imagine such a country where that is the case?



Are you Norwegian? Do you go to a Norwegian school? From your post, it seems like it, but if you are, you went to a crappy school. From 20 years ago. 

Prisons are for rehabilitation, and of course they should look like our schools. They are being re-educated into society and if they don't get the same possibilities as the rest of us they will never get out of the circle of crime. 

I'm not debating for the entire world to adopt this system, but I find that humanity is decaying if it would rather focus on what a "waste" of money it is than the _reason_ it was built and the benefits of actually doing this. These are people who are going to spend up to 21 years in a facility and they should spend it in a way which makes it easier for them to reintegrate. 



erictheking said:


> My point about alleviating poverty was not unique to Norway, yet you seem to be personally offended. It's an ethical obligation that no-one in the first-world is paying much heed to. It's an expansion of the imagination of 'everyone' and 'we' that you keep referring to; instead of help applying only to Norwegians it would ideally apply to humans -- particularly the approximate 1.2 billion of them who are living on less than $2 a day, and the 8 million who die every year from lack of *basic * things like food, water and health care -- the humans who need our help the most.
> 
> You can feel proud of your country all you want; I'm not talking about regular development aid, everyone pays that through their taxes although it's not proved to be particularly effective over the years. In fact some of the poorest areas have gotten poorer.
> 
> As an extension of the idea that individually we waste money on things we don't need when we could have used that money to save lives -- by investing so much (relatively) into prison facilities, you are forgoing (at least) tens of thousands of lives. If you actually think that is justifiable, you have to say that reducing already low crime rates (with £1 million murals) in Norway is more important than many tens of thousands of lives in Asia and Africa, which is an indefensible position.



I'm not _that_ proud of Norway, it's not perfect, there are a lot we can do _better_, however put any country up against Norway and let's see anyone who _can_ actually do better. 

The 1 billion poor people you are referring to _make their own misery_. The birth rate in poor countries are highest in the world. (I would know, my Thai mother come from a family of ten siblings)

They breed _poverty_. We can't help them all. An easy solution to this would be killing all these people and poverty would've been abolished, huh? _Why care about these worthless people?_ 

But, we do care. We give them money for education, because it has been proven in several aspects that education lower birth rates and is an economical lift. Abolish sex, then STDs will die out.  Nope, sex-ed please. 

How about that, education can help prevent certain issues. Seem familiar?

Give people fish or learn them to fish. We should give them help to help themselves. Convicts, poor people, religious fanatics or whatever. 

*hordhaleine*: want to try my rock-climbing wall?  It's right outside, but filled with bushes and trees.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 15, 2010)

This guy should also be stationed in Prison:

[YOUTUBE]077UtUWGQOA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 15, 2010)

Ugeda said:


> You make it sound like you're from Norway? (It looks like Spica was talking about Norwegian schools and prisons.)
> 
> Wherever you are from, it might not be the case that prisons and schools should have the same standard. But here, most newly built/newly renovated public buildings are expected to have the same good standard.. No matter what purpose the building serves. (Be it a cinema, a school, a hospital, a prison..)


What do you even mean by 'the same standard' and what do you think I meant when I say that our (*meaning the UK*, I've said it several times already in this thread) prisons and our schools are different? It's not like we build one out of bricks and the other out of fecking manure, all of our public buildings have to pass certain regulatory standards of health & safety - flat screen TV's are not covered though. 



> Of course there is no moral obligation to give criminals whatever everyone else has - and they don't get that. The main restriction on prisoners are freedom, and choice.


No shit pal. I said that they shouldn't *necessarily* have the same 'facilities', unless there was some extra utility that the wider society gained from it, such as lower re-offending rates. 



> I certainly don't think that a completely low-standard prison system where it serves the purpose of punishment so that the victims can 'find peace' by knowing that the offender is being punished is any good compared to rehabilitation so that they can become a better/normal citizen. The punishment system is just plain evil, and that makes the victims and the state almost as 'criminal' as the criminals themselves.
> 
> (I almost felt like drawing up the middle-age custom of "Blodhemn" that was common practice in Norway during the Viking-age.. *your idea of a punishment-based system reminds me of this in a way.)*


You make me laugh. Get off your fucking high-horse. I didn't advocate any punishment-focused prison system, and consistently stated that this kind of prison system would probably be worth it [to Norwegians, at least] if it was effective.



> Janteloven, deeply rooted in the Norwegian citizens mind from kindergarden-age, says that you are not better than anyone else.


That's nice. But humanitarians are better people than serial murderers. 'Janteloven' probably works better for small children..



> In a country in the world tops when it comes to equality, do you really find it so weird that we don't think the way you, wherever you are from, do by saying "I'm better than you because you made a mistake in life, so I get a rock climbing wall and you don't."
> 
> I think if a person is sitting in a prison with little freedom and choice for the next 20 years, them getting a rock-climbing wall isn't that big a sacrifice at all for a normal citizen. They might have done something horrible, but that is no reason to deny them a little enjoyment in the long years of containment.
> 
> I'd like to add that my school HAS a rock-climbing wall available. As does most schools around here.


... even more bizarre gloating.  Congratulations, you were born in a wealthy and fairly equitable country. I'm starting to get the feeling this Janteloven lark doesn't extend to Johnny Foreigner.

But no, I don't find the idea of providing some recreation for prisoners weird. Not sure about spending £1 million on a mural though.



> Dude, if the world was to be like you want it to be - we wouldn't need countries and separate economies. We'd just share everything with everyone. I bet that would be a wonderful world.
> 
> Just saying that the leaders of countries think of their own people's well being before people 5000 miles away. It's just the way politics and the whole country/state thing works. I'm not saying it's ideal, but it's working, in a way.
> 
> If you have some genius way to make poverty disappear, and still keep the citizens of "industrialized countries" happy, suggest it to the politicians. I'd like to see that work out.


I would expect the credit for having some basic grasp on reality. I am aware of things like politics, economics and sovereign states. 

I'm talking about ethics. Hypothetically, I don't care whether the ubermensch of noble Norway are unhappy with not having luxury lavished upon them and funds instead being used to provide food, water and health care for the poorest and exploited around the world. 

There is a way to alleviate world poverty significantly. It isn't that hard. Donate money that you don't need.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 15, 2010)

Isn't Norway's prison system working. I thought they had less re-offenders, and criminals in general, than other countries of similar population.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 15, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Isn't Norway's prison system working. I thought they had less re-offenders, and criminals in general, than other countries of similar population.


Doesn't mean that this particular thing is the cause. It wouldn't make sense that being nicer to prisoners would make them not come back.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 15, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Doesn't mean that this particular thing is the cause. It wouldn't make sense that being nicer to prisoners would make them not come back.



There does seem to be a trend though, other countries with softer prison systems also have low numbers of criminals and re-offenders compared to more traditional systems. Western countries at least.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 15, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> There does seem to be a trend though, other countries with softer prison systems also have low numbers of criminals and re-offenders compared to more traditional systems. Western countries at least.



I don't see how that even makes sense, its more than likely cultural.


----------



## Jin-E (May 15, 2010)

Wow, this sure makes us look like pussies that treat criminals with kiddy gloves. Rehabilitation is nice and all and i dont suggest they be locked inside some dark dungeon, but you should draw the line somewhere.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 15, 2010)

Spica said:


> I'm not _that_ proud of Norway, it's not perfect, there are a lot we can do _better_, however put any country up against Norway and let's see anyone who _can_ actually do better.
> 
> The 1 billion poor people you are referring to _make their own misery_. The birth rate in poor countries are highest in the world. (I would know, my Thai mother come from a family of ten siblings)
> 
> ...



A *vile*, shocking world-view. You are in *urgent* need of re-education yourself, if you think that those people are suffering and dying due to their own "immoral" behaviour. 

Africa has only one–fifth the population density of Europe, and has an unexploited food–raising potential that could feed twice the present population of the world. If anything, there is an underpopulation of the labour force in Africa. Overpopulation does not cause hunger, poverty and inequality does.

It is very bad (incompetent and corrupt) economic policy (that is, *international *economic policy) and politics that causes all of this suffering. Not food scarcity, not those idiotic poor people reproducing too much.


----------



## Spica (May 15, 2010)

erictheking said:


> A *vile*, shocking world-view. You are in *urgent* need of re-education yourself, if you think that those people are suffering and dying due to their own "immoral" behaviour.
> 
> Africa has only one–fifth the population density of Europe, and has an unexploited food–raising potential that could feed twice the present population of the world. If anything, there is an underpopulation of the labour force in Africa. Overpopulation does not cause hunger, poverty and inequality does.
> 
> It is very bad (incompetent and corrupt) economic policy (that is, *international *economic policy) and politics that causes all of this suffering. Not food scarcity, not those idiotic poor people reproducing too much.



It sarcasm.  Which I thought you would be able to identify when you read further below. 

EDIT: Overpopulation _cause_ hunger, poverty AND inequality. Poor people believe that more children give more income to the family, which it doesn't. They give life to more people who are going through poverty, who give life to even _more_ people who are experiencing poverty. How can we help this growing number? I believe education is the way to go.

Anyhow, we've tracked way out of topic.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 15, 2010)

I saw that.. try to focus on the substance of what I'm saying, instead of making sure I "get" your not-very-funny jokes.


----------



## Spica (May 15, 2010)

Well, I wouldn't want you to misunderstand.


----------



## Ugeda (May 15, 2010)

By the same standard, I mean they should be just as good. And provide a good environment for those using it - no matter if they are prisoners or schoolchildren or llamas. (Not that llamas use Norwegian public buildings, but yeah..)




> Our newly renovated schools do not and are not expected to look anything like our prisons.



If you are from the UK, why did you reply to Spica as if you were talking about the same schools? I don't really think she said anything about your schools. She just said that schools and prisons in her country are expected to 'look' the same meaning that all public buildings should have a certain standard. 

You actually said the same about public buildings in the UK afterwards.. Does that mean you changed your mind? Or are prisons not public buildings on the same line as schools there? :/



> That's nice. But humanitarians are better people than serial murderers. 'Janteloven' probably works better for small children..
> 
> There is a way to alleviate world poverty significantly. It isn't that hard. Donate money that you don't need.



And who are we to judge who's the better person, and what is not needed?
Norway does donate money it doesn't need... but do you think it's wise to just give away everything you don't use to a poor country? What if you come into a tight situation in the future?



> I'm starting to get the feeling this Janteloven lark doesn't extend to Johnny Foreigner.


Never said it did. Nationalism and such is too deeply rooted for that to ever work - in any country.

Norway is in the tops of equality within its own borders.



> But no, I don't find the idea of providing some recreation for prisoners weird. Not sure about spending ?1 million on a mural though.



Compared to what the country spends on poverty and similar things, ?1 million is insignificant.



> Get off your fucking high-horse. I didn't advocate any punishment-focused prison system, and consistently stated that this kind of prison system would probably be worth it [to Norwegians, at least] if it was effective.



Sorry, I should have written "the" istead of "your", my mistake. 



> I would expect the credit for having some basic grasp on reality. I am aware of things like politics, economics and sovereign states.



I was just trying to explain why leaders take care of their own before people they don't have any relations to. 

10000 lives versus reduced crime.. might seem like a simple choice, but the whole "your own people" vs. "others far, far away" count fairly much in such questions.



I don't think we'll ever come to an agreement on this. Our cultures and way of thinking are too different. I understand that it might be different in the UK, and I think it's okay that you criticize all you want, because everyone knows that what you're used to yourself is the best way of doing it.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 15, 2010)

No, I don't think we're so different. Problems arise when one party can't imagine anyone else's perspective, and believe in the innate superiority of their own nation. 



> 10000 lives versus reduced crime.. might seem like a simple choice, but the whole "your own people" vs. "others far, far away" *count fairly much in such questions.*


Ethically, it should not count for a great deal. Clearly you have to fulfil certain obligations to the society you live in, and you can't exactly siphon every penny away or your own economy would collapse. Significant contributions can nevertheless be made. At the moment, even insignificant contributions are not being made.



Spica said:


> EDIT: *Overpopulation cause hunger, poverty AND inequality*. Poor people believe that more children give more income to the family, which it doesn't. They give life to more people who are going through poverty, who give life to even _more_ people who are experiencing poverty. How can we help this growing number? I believe education is the way to go.
> 
> Anyhow, we've tracked way out of topic.


What? No, economic policies cause poverty and inequality. But in an ironic turn of events, it seems like what you're saying is that it is better if these people didn't live after all -- which is close to your earlier sarcastic joke that you thought I misunderstood of you.


----------



## Ugeda (May 15, 2010)

erictheking said:


> No, I don't think we're so different. Problems arise when one party can't imagine anyone else's perspective, and believe in the innate superiority of their own nation.



Are you saying that you see our point of view better than we see yours? That would mean we shouldn't have been fighting at all.

I agree with you on the last part. That is how problems arise.



erictheking said:


> Ethically, it should not count for a great deal. Clearly you have to fulfil certain obligations to the society you live in, and you can't exactly siphon every penny away or your own economy would collapse. Significant contributions can nevertheless be made. At the moment, even insignificant contributions are not being made.


Probably not, but ethics isn't what influence politicians making decisions the most. It's politics. I agree with you that it should not be like that - that the world would be fairer if it wasn't. But it's not really anything common people like you and me can do anything about. We can think whatever we want, but it's not really gonna change anything.

I think that 1% of GDP is a pretty significant contribution though. It's more than 100 of those prisons.


On another note, I don't think overpopulation CAUSE poverty, but when poverty already exists, it sure makes it worse.

Edit: Changed the number, because I realized I  had the wrong price tag for the prison.


----------



## Spica (May 15, 2010)

erictheking said:


> What? No, economic policies cause poverty and inequality. But in an ironic turn of events, it seems like what you're saying is that it is better if these people didn't live after all -- which is close to your earlier sarcastic joke that you thought I misunderstood of you.



Why do you think China and India are working so hard to lower their birth rates? Economical growth cannot be provided on economic policies alone. A big bump on the road is overpopulation. Even Norway, if we had the same birth rate here as in poor countries, we wouldn't be rich at all. Our economic policy would fall down alltogether with a birthrate of five or six. 

Hm, abortion and condoms do prevent lifeforms from living, but it doesn't have anything to do about massacring an entire social class as you believe. Or am I being too naive?


----------



## Mr Serenity (May 15, 2010)

The criminals who get the death sentence in Japan get sent to a jail cell hardly big enough to move in. It's meant so they can just sit in seiza and think for as long as they're there. Then you aren't given a date of execution. You're just told the same day when it's ready to happen.


----------



## Ugeda (May 15, 2010)

Japan is a very different country from Norway in many ways though, and that means that their prison system is different as well.


----------



## horsdhaleine (May 15, 2010)

Out of topic but...



			
				erictheking said:
			
		

> There is a way to alleviate world poverty significantly. It isn't that hard. Donate money that you don't need.


Lol. As if it's that simple. XD

Oh, and they do donate money.

They donated 1M NOK to the Philippines last year in order to assist Red Cross' work when we suffered from two devastating super typhoons. (Typhoon Ondoy inundated almost the whole Metro Manila while Pepeng wrecked the North). Minister of the Environment and International Development Erik Solheim also allocated 20M NOK for Indonesia and Philippines.



> ?Both Indonesia and the Philippines are requesting assistance after experiencing violent earthquakes and severe flooding. Norway is therefore allocating NOK 20 million to efforts to alleviate the effects of these devastating natural disasters,? said Minister of the Environment and International Development Erik Solheim
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



They also give minor support to some political minorities here that occasionally experienced Human Rights violation.

The fund is not enough to save the whole country from its problems. But then again too much aid is not always beneficial. How can we stand on our own if we always depend?

Plus...



			
				The Challenge of Global Health said:
			
		

> PIPE DREAMS
> 
> One might think that with all this money on the table, the solutions to many global health problems would at least now be in sight. But one would be wrong. Most funds come with strings attached and must be spent according to donors' priorities, politics, and values. And the largest levels of donations are propelled by mass emotional responses, such as to the Asian tsunami. Still more money is needed, on a regular basis and without restrictions on the uses to which it is put. But even if such resources were to materialize, major obstacles would still stand in the way of their doing much lasting good.
> 
> ...



Bono can continue singing to Make Poverty History but that didn't stop Jean-B?del Bokassa of the Central African Republic to buy a gold-plated bed and Mobutu Sese Seko to go on personal jaunts on the Concorde by using Western aid. I am no economist. But it should be obvious that without sound economic policies and development projects, foreign aid would only help the select few and may not be of much use to the general populace.

I think the 1% of GDP that they donate to help other is just enough, if not already a lot. More than that and they could very well end up being exchanged as chips and cheques in casinos. Do you want that?


----------



## Sasori (May 15, 2010)

Wow some interesting discussion is happening here.

I wish I was able to express myself well enough to contribute.


----------



## ikra (May 15, 2010)

if you lose all hope for your own well being, go to norway, commit a crime, and youre sorted for life.


----------



## Yakushi Kabuto (May 15, 2010)

What do I have to do to get in there. The mural made me giggle, it felt a little bit like it was making fun of prisoners. While the idea of treating prisoners humanely as a way to reintegrate them into society eventually is nice I can easily see it being a bad idea as well. It could be sending off the message that this is the kind of punishment people get for such crimes. But at least the lack of people trying to escape isn't much of a surprise and the lower precent of reoffenders in Norway is inspiring.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 15, 2010)

horsdhaleine said:


> Out of topic but...
> 
> Lol. As if it's that simple. XD
> 
> ...


You demonstrate the lack of even a rudimentary understanding of the causes of poverty, or of the efficacy of possible solutions. Unfortunately, though I would like to make an attempt at outlining this I don't have the time right now. Perhaps I'll come back to it sometime later. 

A good resource for learning about it : 



However, importantly - I am not really even arguing for foreign aid at all. When I say 'give money you don't need' - it means to donate money to charities like UNICEF, Oxfam, Save The Children etc. Do you realise that this is not the same as tax money used for (strategic) foreign aid?

I am not implying that poverty has some quick fix, if I did mistakenly do so then that's my being inarticulate. It remains a fact that by giving up on our own luxuries, we can save the lives of poor people (which *is* alleviating poverty, the thing that you apparently find laughable) therefore there is absolutely no question about the fact that we ought to give up on most of our luxuries, and give that money away, to live a morally decent life.


----------



## Ugeda (May 15, 2010)

I think we're way, WAY off topic, really.


----------



## dreams lie (May 15, 2010)

Adonis said:


> There is no just alternative. Killing them all indiscriminately isn't an option and we've already been through the costs of the death penalty. If you think of it as "feeding criminals" then it is a twisted thought for taxpayers, though prisons don't seem to be all that much of a drain given how in love we've become with building them since the '80s, but if you think of it as "keeping dangerous people off the streets and/or rehabilitating them" then it seems as integral as building roads.



I am fully aware that legal costs makes the death penalty impractical. I just never stopped toying with the idea that we hand it over to private companies.  Throughly regulated, of course, but the criminals might as well be productive while they are in prison.   



> Locking someone up for life isn't affording them a second chance. If they can be rehabilitated, they'll get a second chance. If they can't, they'll be locked up for the rest of their lives; not out of malice, but in the same way a lunatic is locked up in an asylum.
> 
> Incarceration tends to disable them for all intents and purposes. Yet, people bask in the idea that their punishment doesn't end there but will include daily shower rapes and degradation. If our penal system condones prisoners being raped by others, have that listed as part of the sentence. Otherwise, don't sentence someone to prison yet enable rape as an unofficial punishment because "Bah, they deserve it!"



And I suppose there is no reason to harbor thoughts of vengeance if they are imprisoned indefinitely, but not always are the sentences for our murderers or rapists for life.  It also goes to say that I would venture a guess that the majority of us simply do not care what happens to the criminals past incarceration.  How many of us actively demand the criminal be raped?  There is a lack of empathy for those who cause so much grief, so people joke and turn their eyes away from anything that follows.  



> That wouldn't solve anything. Victims, especially in the throes of grief, are as prone to hyperbolic reactions as anyone else. You'd get torture and death every time. For a criminal to kill someone is tragic. For it to compel "normal" people to the same behavior is even worse. Why let a horrible act defile everything it touches? Society isn't meant to be a conduit for personal vengeance.



Society should allow for the victims to seek closure, even if it seems useless to have the criminals tortured or executed.  It is hardly our right to intervene on their personal affairs, and besides, we could still mandate some standards preventing cruel or unusual punishment.  It is a completely separate argument (the extent to what the victims can demand) from whether or not the sentencing be removed from the power of a judge and placed into the hands of those most directly affected by the calamity.   



> If you believe "humanity" precludes certain vile behaviors, yes, you're being idealistic.



Humans can err, and we inevitably do, but their privileged status is up for revocation if these "certain vile behaviors" violate the rights of others.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (May 15, 2010)

They can afford to do this because they have such a low poverty level. Low poverty level--> low crime rate. People with opportunities have a lower crime rate.


----------



## Morphine (May 15, 2010)

That is quite unusual. Murderers get a nicer room than mine.


----------



## Purgatory (May 15, 2010)

Fuck, where do I sign up?


----------



## Juice (May 15, 2010)

Thats nice.


----------



## Adonis (May 15, 2010)

It's quaint that people from a country whose incarceration rate has increased 6-fold within the past 3 decades feel it fit for them to advise a country with a much lower recidivism rate how prisons ought to work.

Do I think this prison is too luxurious? Call it my American bias, but yes. However, I'm not shaking with rage over it nor do I think it wise to dismiss the methods of Norway's penal system simply because it seems counter-intuitive. I also acknowledge that if an entire country's infrastructure is rich, everything within it, even the lowest of the low, is going to seem glamorous when compared to that of countries stricken by poverty.

Subjective value is also being ignored. Being able to leave my house and walk around freely raises its value to above that of even a "luxurious" prison.

I'll wait and see before casting judgment in either direction. Though, if pressed, I suspect this is the next step in the civilized penal system. 500 years from now, our prisons will look as pointlessly barbaric and ineffectual as medieval dungeons.



dreams lie said:


> I am fully aware that legal costs makes the death penalty impractical. I just never stopped toying with the idea that we hand it over to private companies.  Throughly regulated, of course, but the criminals might as well be productive while they are in prison.



Privatizing prisons is an awful idea. Financially incentivizing incarceration in a country whos incarceration rate has already sextupled will only lead to corporate slavery. Why not impose harsher sentences when you can have labor for $1/day?





> And I suppose there is no reason to harbor thoughts of vengeance if they are imprisoned indefinitely, but not always are the sentences for our murderers or rapists for life.  It also goes to say that I would venture a guess that the majority of us simply do not care what happens to the criminals past incarceration.  How many of us actively demand the criminal be raped?  There is a lack of empathy for those who cause so much grief, so people joke and turn their eyes away from anything that follows.



The fact most criminals don't get life sentences supports rehabilitation.

If a criminal is going to be tossed back into society, would I rather he reenter it equipped to cope on the outside or inculcated in a culture of prison gangs and agsression which he'll carry to the outside (most likely reoffending?) This is why I also support more lenient hiring policies in regard to felons (unless it's a school or something); unemployment is never conducive.

I'll grant you your point about prison rape though most people genuinely support it.





> Society should allow for the victims to seek closure, even if it seems useless to have the criminals tortured or executed.  It is hardly our right to intervene on their personal affairs, and besides, we could still mandate some standards preventing cruel or unusual punishment.  It is a completely separate argument (the extent to what the victims can demand) from whether or not the sentencing be removed from the power of a judge and placed into the hands of those most directly affected by the calamity.



That's the thing: it's not a personal affair. The dealing of criminals is a government responsibility and can't be left to the whim of individuals. If you want to take their opinion into consideration during sentencing, fine; but to deem "whatever you want, we'll do" isn't our responsibility.

Likewise, closure isn't the sort of thing that's like, "If only we got to handle him our way, we'd have closure." Some people never get closure and others are satisfied with incarceration.




> Humans can err, and we inevitably do, but their privileged status is up for revocation if these "certain vile behaviors" violate the rights of others.



"Humanity" isn't a privilege.


----------



## Souji Okita (May 16, 2010)

I hope some day I can live in a place half that nice...


----------



## Garfield (May 16, 2010)

I don't really get the logic behind this yet, but I hope the people who made the decision are basing on real facts and studies rather than hopes. The damn prison looks better than most dormrooms of US universities or most apartments of middle class families in India.


----------



## Andre (May 16, 2010)

Dayuuuuum.

And here I was resigning myself to be a respectful member of society.


----------



## UX7 (May 16, 2010)

Some members of this forums got a pretty weird logic...reading back pages 2-4 

So...people can rape murder, etc and they get send here to be rehabilitate? Sure, that's the case for _some _but not for _all_. For all we know they get out of the prison resort and go causing more damage to others. And what then? They get send to the prison resort again? Makes no sense.


----------



## Sahyks (May 16, 2010)

Oh wow, I wouldn't mind that type of living.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (May 16, 2010)

I am getitng an urge to go to Norway to commit crimes

whose with me ? 



Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Yeah.
> 
> The problem is people who see punishment as having a value in itself. To them any humane treating of prisoners is an offense.



And they are wrong . Punishment only exists to deter people from comiting crimes , as does rehabilitation . People who believe Justice should serve as a ventil for vengence are the big problem in west european judicial circles .



CeriaHalcyon said:


> private showers, no chance for ass rape, that's a hotel not a prison.



So acording to this person sexual assault should become part of the sentence , right


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (May 16, 2010)

For what it's worth, about everyone saying that people will kill to get into this place (and other witty comments of the like), I think they're underestimating how much most people value their freedom.

One Daily Mail commenter puts it quite succinctly I think.

"There is a reason why Norway has such a low persentage of prisoners ending back in jail after release. I believe this is because prisoners who are treated with respect have a fair chance to adjust to society when released. *People who are treated like dirt, behave like dirt.*"


----------



## Extasee (May 16, 2010)

What's the catch? Is there a monster hiding under every bed giving the inmates nightmares? Candyman roaming the halls? ANYTHING?


----------



## San Juan Wolf (May 16, 2010)

Well to be honest not having to share a toilet with thirty other people is considered luxurious ? 

I mean , the cells don't look that big , and I would actualy have problems there after whatever leave because my claustrofobia demands walking space .


----------



## Extasee (May 16, 2010)

I could live in a 12x12 room.  this makes my day.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (May 16, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You're not supposed to be comfortable, you're not there because you're good and *you're not there to learn, you're there to be punished* for a crime done.




Hmm , I once heard of something called "rehabilitation" , must be a myth .


----------



## mystictrunks (May 16, 2010)

愛 said:


> What's the catch? Is there a monster hiding under every bed giving the inmates nightmares? Candyman roaming the halls? ANYTHING?



It's still a prison.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (May 16, 2010)

I am not please....no WIFI internet access !!!!


Screw flat screen tv !!!!









One of the reasons why Norway made its prison's cells appear luxurious is because compare to other Western countries.....only 20 % of their prisoners are returning inmates.



And Norway is known for receiving huge loans from its government.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 17, 2010)

Rehabilitation: the restoration of someone to a useful place in society


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 17, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Rehabilitation: the restoration of someone to a useful place in society


Where does it say shit about learning or being comfortable or any of that other stuff. You don't have to learn to be rehabilitated, especially if you knew what you were doing was wrong. 

What about criminals there for life, what are you rehabilitating them for? Dying. 

Please if a prison was primarily for that, how come some people go in and have no chance of coming out ever again? 

Oh I know why, because you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Where does it say shit about learning or being comfortable or any of that other stuff. You don't have to learn to be rehabilitated, especially if you knew what you were doing was wrong.


Learning will make them a useful member of society. Someone with skills of some sort is obviously more useful than someone with no skills. As far as comfort the main punishment of prison is not having any real sense of freedom. 



> What about criminals there for life, what are you rehabilitating them for? Dying.


Not applicable to this discussion. Life sentences do not exist in Norway. 



> Please if a prison was primarily for that, how come some people go in and have no chance of coming out ever again?


See above.



> Oh I know why, because you don't know what you're talking about.


You're talking about a different country's prison system. It has nothing to do with prisons in Norway.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 17, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Learning will make them a useful member of society. Someone with skills of some sort is obviously more useful than someone with no skills. As far as comfort the main punishment of prison is not having any real sense of freedom.
> 
> 
> Not applicable to this discussion. Life sentences do not exist in Norway.
> ...


Sounds like a piss poor system to me. Norway needs to fix that, even if the country is rich there's no reason to give anymore of their money to the human waste that populates most prison systems.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sounds like a piss poor system to me. Norway needs to fix that, even if the country is rich there's no reason to give anymore of their money to the human waste that populates most prison systems.



They're actually spending slightly less money as the U.S. does on prisons if the price for a prison of this nature is the norm for prisons over there.

They also have a seriously low amount of reoffenders meaning the vast majority of those who go to prison end up becoming normal members of society upon release.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (May 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Where does it say shit about learning or being comfortable or any of that other stuff. You don't have to learn to be rehabilitated, especially if you knew what you were doing was wrong.



I think it's the idea of prison not being somewhere where criminals are hardened that motivates making prison comfortable.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 17, 2010)

Rob` said:


> I think it's the idea of prison not being somewhere where criminals are hardened that motivates making prison comfortable.


Sounds like you need to fix the low income areas then, that's where people are hardened and pushed to the edge.


----------



## Spica (May 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sounds like you need to fix the low income areas then, that's where people are hardened and pushed to the edge.



Now that's not Norway is it?


----------



## Valtieri (May 17, 2010)

_That_ isn't a prison, what the hell are they thinking?
I know a bunch of bums that would do anything to get in on somewhere like that


----------



## Garfield (May 17, 2010)

Valtieri said:


> _That_ isn't a prison, what the hell are they thinking?
> I know a bunch of bums that would do anything to get in on somewhere like that


Some, yes, but most people still would like freedom than being confined in a golden cage.


----------



## perman07 (May 17, 2010)

The main fallacy you Americans seem to be making is that building expensive prisons creates an expensive penal system. Let me ask you a question, what do you think makes up most of the costs of a penal system? The building costs of prisons? No, it's the length of the sentences.

Now I'm not saying Norway has short sentences to save money, but we try not to keep prisoners in prisons cause they "deserve to rot".

As such, you Americans maybe should ask yourselves whether you can truly criticize a country that has too lavish prisons (I personally don't know how much money you should spend on luxuries) when you spend more money on the penal system yourself.

We should keep a level head, some people seem to think the main purpose of the penal system is to satisfy some vengeful need for justice. Given the fact that most prisoners (even in a country with a lot of life- and death sentences like America) get out, from a utilitarian context it's obvious we should try to go beyond our selfish needs for "retribution" and focus on what actually rehabilitates people.

Now I'm not even saying the Norwegian penal system works well at rehabilitating, I honestly have no clue, the low crime rates probably don't have that much to do with the penal systems and more to do with education and prosperity. But we should keep an open mind on what works best when it comes to rehabilitation instead of just letting our selfish needs for retribution dictate how the penal system should operate.

If forcing people to change actually worked well, I suspect therapy for citizens would be very different. Actually changing people requires you to work with people, not just punishing them for wrong behavior (negative reinforcement in other words. It's widely acknowledged by psychologists that positive reinforcement is more effective at changing bad behavior than negative reinforcement).


----------



## Miss Fortune (May 17, 2010)

How is this a prison?

It looks more like a college dorm room.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (May 17, 2010)

Ha, you think I get my own shower?


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (May 17, 2010)

Miss Fortune said:


> How is this a prison?
> 
> It looks more like a college dorm room.



Because all dorm rooms are locked from the outside.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 17, 2010)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Because all dorm rooms are locked from the outside.



Wow, so you looked at that one thing and shoot that down? 

You realize that you have to look hard to find a dorm where you get you own shower? Your own bed in a room alone? 

Seriously your comment just makes you look silly, I doubt he was talking about the locks. He was talking about the fact that they're being treated like students at a fancy college.


----------



## perman07 (May 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wow, so you looked at that one thing and shoot that down?
> 
> You realize that you have to look hard to find a dorm where you get you own shower? Your own bed in a room alone?
> 
> Seriously your comment just makes you look silly, I doubt he was talking about the locks. He was talking about the fact that they're being treated like students at a fancy college.


Norway incidentally has cheap, abundant water supplies in addition to the oil. I've never been in another country where people consistently drink tap water. Had a little trip to Denmark this weekend, the bottled water tasted worse than our tap water.

I don't see a problem with them having individual showers personally. Having your own shower isn't exactly the height of luxury after all. I think preventing stereotypical shower rapes is a goal worth building individual showers for personally. 

Unless you suggest making shower rape part of the sentence. I hope you're not that big of an American cliché that thinks they deserve to get raped in the showers.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 17, 2010)

perman07 said:


> Norway incidentally has cheap, abundant water supplies in addition to the oil. I've never been in another country where people consistently drink tap water. Had a little trip to Denmark this weekend, the bottled water tasted worse than our tap water.
> 
> I don't see a problem with them having individual showers personally. Having your own shower isn't exactly the height of luxury after all. I think preventing stereotypical shower rapes is a goal worth building individual showers for personally. Unless you suggest making shower rape part of the sentence.
> 
> I hope you're not that big of an American clich? that thinks they deserve to get raped in the showers.


When has anyone ever said people deserve prison rapes. People have to take shows together in places all of the time and its usually not comfortable. I just don't think these people deserve comfort.


----------



## perman07 (May 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> When has anyone ever said people deserve prison rapes. People have to take shows together in places all of the time and its usually not comfortable. I just don't think these people deserve comfort.


You think removing that one small confort is more important than reducing prison rape? Nice to know...


----------



## Petenshi (May 17, 2010)

Prison is supposed to keep you out of society for a while and let you think about what you did, or just keep you out forever. Prisons shouldn't be horrible on purpose, and I don't think they are in America. They just happen to be because we don't have the resources to make prisons better.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 17, 2010)

perman07 said:


> You think removing that one small confort is more important than reducing prison rape? Nice to know...



Put a guard in there with them, shit I don't know. Don't you think someone could get raped in a public shower at a college? Shouldn't we protect them more?

Nice to know you think people only ever get raped in Prison.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (May 17, 2010)

I'd like to kill someone over there.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 17, 2010)

You guys are ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) if you want someone to get raped in jail. I get so tired of hearing that shit. I bet some of you would want to watch that shit happen too.


----------



## perman07 (May 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Put a guard in there with them, shit I don't know. Don't you think someone could get raped in a public shower at a college? Shouldn't we protect them more?


It's possible this already happens actually. I suspect reducing rape is a goal of most prisons. If not, then some priorities need to get straightened out.

I personally get the arguments that prison shouldn't be overly lavish, I just don't consider individual showers to be that great of a luxury. If you're building a new prison I see no reason not to include them, shared shower rooms shouldn't be built in any living arrangement in this modern age IMO. An individual shower room can be a less than square meter big, it's not that huge of an expense.


> Nice to know you think people only ever get raped in Prison.


When did I ever say anything about how much rape there is on the outside? Straw-man dude..


----------



## Damaris (May 17, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> You guys are ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) if you want someone to get raped in jail. I get so tired of hearing that shit. I bet some of you would want to watch that shit happen too.



1. People mention rape in prison
2. Proceed to defend rapists as merely people who make "bad decisions"
3. Then, regardless of whether the person says prison rape should happen or not, accuse them of getting off on it.
4. ???
5. Profit


----------



## Lovely (May 17, 2010)

Wouldn't that have the opposite effect and make them _want_ to commit more crimes? 


lol logic.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 17, 2010)

perman07 said:


> It's possible this already happens actually. I suspect reducing rape is a goal of most prisons. If not, then some priorities need to get straightened out.
> 
> I personally get the arguments that prison shouldn't be overly lavish, I just don't consider individual showers to be that great of a luxury. If you're building a new prison I see no reason not to include them, shared shower rooms shouldn't be built in any living arrangement in this modern age IMO. An individual shower room can be a less than square meter big, it's not that huge of an expense.
> 
> When did I ever say anything about how much rape there is on the outside? Straw-man dude..



You're acting as if rape can only happen because people are in a shower, I'm willing to bed it happens all over the place in prison. Putting a guard there or something should be enough to reduce it. I don't advocate the rape of anyone, even rapists.


----------



## Adonis (May 17, 2010)

LovelyComplex said:


> Wouldn't that have the opposite effect and make them _want_ to commit more crimes?
> 
> 
> lol logic.



Yet, Norway has a low recidivism rate.

lol kneejerk intuition


----------



## mystictrunks (May 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Put a guard in there with them, shit I don't know. Don't you think someone could get raped in a public shower at a college? Shouldn't we protect them more?
> 
> Nice to know you think people only ever get raped in Prison.



Male on male rape, in the U.S., is far more likely to occur in prison.

It's also more likely to occur in European prison than anywhere else but the number is significantly lower than in the U.S.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 17, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Male on male rape, in the U.S., is far more likely to occur in prison.


Male on male rape is also likely to be unreported so any figure you would have would be pretty badly marred by that. Also I didn't say it didn't happen so what are you bringing this up for?


----------



## xpeed (May 17, 2010)

I don't care what they say, Norway probably has a ninja-Bubba that can hide behind walls and waits for you to drop the soap.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Male on male rape is also likely to be unreported so any figure you would have would be pretty badly marred by that. Also I didn't say it didn't happen so what are you bringing this up for?



You said we should protect university students more when the numbers, that we know of, show that people in prison would need more protection.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 17, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> You said we should protect university students more when the numbers, that we know of, show that people in prison would need more protection.


People in prison aren't really worth protecting as much as people who will go on to lead the nation. Sorry but that's how it goes. Someone in prison isn't primary concern.


----------



## perman07 (May 17, 2010)

A thought suddenly occurred to me. You've got privately run prisons in America right? I personally think that might be a lousy idea for the same reason privately run mercenaries and security companies with too much power can be a problem.

They think profits, so not building individual showers, not spending money on creating a good environment for rehabilitation and withholding money in general to profit seems like things privately run prisons might do.

And prison shouldn't be about the cost per prisoner per prison time, it should be about the cost from a macro-perspective on society as a whole where you think about bringing prisoners back to society instead of creating criminals. Or in other words, cost/gain per criminal. Re-integrating prisoners to society would save society way more money than reducing luxuries ever could.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 17, 2010)

We don't have privately run prisons to my knowledge. The idea had come up, but I don't think they've enacted it.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People in prison aren't really worth protecting as much as people who will go on to lead the nation. Sorry but that's how it goes. Someone in prison isn't primary concern.



They're still worth protecting, especially in a system such as Norway's where the vast majority go on to become productive members of society.


On Private prisons:
Yes there are several private prisons in the U.S., well at least a few years ago. Not sure about now.

Edit: There's like 150ish.


----------



## perman07 (May 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You're acting as if rape can only happen because people are in a shower, I'm willing to bed it happens all over the place in prison. Putting a guard there or something should be enough to reduce it. I don't advocate the rape of anyone, even rapists.


Actually, I never said anything about rape elsewhere. Again with the fucking straw-men, you need to watch that bad habit. I think it's probable it happens plenty of other places actually. That doesn't mean limiting shower rapes won't reduce overall rape statistics.

It's funny how I barely touched shower rapes in the post you quoted last and talked more about how individual shower rooms are something that should be built in any modern living arrangement, yet you completely disregarded that.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Male on male rape is also likely to be unreported so any figure you would have would be pretty badly marred by that. Also I didn't say it didn't happen so what are you bringing this up for?


And you think unreported male rape is a bigger problem on the outside where there isn't a wide-spread culture for punishing snitches? Unreported male rape is definitely a huge problem in prisons.


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People in prison aren't really worth protecting as much as people who will go on to lead the nation. Sorry but that's how it goes. Someone in prison isn't primary concern.


True, but I see no reason why we can't try to protect both. You're creating an either/or question where there is none. And traumatized prisoners, rampant spreads of STD's and other problems might actually save society money by extra spending.

Rehabilitation is the way to go when it's possible, which is pretty often. Most prisoners aren't fucking monsters after all.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 17, 2010)

I think I can branch this off into a tasty little retribution thread. .


----------



## Floory (May 17, 2010)

Spica said:


> Is it really your expense? Do you live in Norway?



No, but I disagree with prisons being so 'nice' in my country. This is just 10x worse. :\


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (May 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wow, so you looked at that one thing and shoot that down?
> 
> *You realize that you have to look hard to find a dorm where you get you own shower? Your own bed in a room alone? *
> 
> Seriously your comment just makes you look silly, I doubt he was talking about the locks. He was talking about the fact that they're being treated like students at a fancy college.



I live in a typical Swedish dorm. I have my own shower and bathroom. There is only one bed. No multi bedrooms without showers.

I don't know a single student residence with more than one bed per room. I know a few places where you have a shared bathroom/shower over several rooms, but those are smaller dorms (3-5 rooms). And again: Only one person per room. No shared rooms.


----------

