home

Austria's Superior Prison Philosophy

By Jeralyn, Section Inmates and Prisons
Posted on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:49:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I hope someone in the Obama Administration takes note of the philosophy behind the Austrian prison system. It's one that could serve the U.S. well.

It's in the news today because Josef Fritzl, the 73 year old sentenced to life for abominable crimes against his daughter, has chosen Garsten as the place to serve his sentence. (Apparently, in Austria, the inmates get to choose their prison.) [More...]

Garsten has classes, cells filled with light, a gym, huge library and offers programs from tennis to art classes.

“The Austrian penal system aims not only at enforcing punishment, but also attempts to bring the inmate back within the norms of society,” said a spokesman for Austrian prisons last week when asked whether it was right that Fritzl should enjoy such a lax regime.

< Qwest's Joe Nacchio Gets Stay While Court Reviews His Cert Petition | March Madness Sunday >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Austria's Superior Prison Philosophy | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Barely punishment at all. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 12:02:13 PM EST
    His daughter certainly didn't have such a nice arrangement for the last 25 years (even without considering the regular rapes). I think there are criminals for whom such improved prison conditions would be helpful to their eventual reintegration into society, but this really doesn't seem appropriate in this case.

    I want him to never see (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    sunlight again, as his daughter did not for 24 years, as three of his children did not for all of their lives until now.

    He can rehabilitate in the dark.

    Parent

    Oh, good God (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jnicola on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 02:05:47 PM EST
    This is not a difficult moral concept. We are supposed to be better than him.

    Parent
    It'snot hard to be better than him. (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 05:54:41 PM EST
    But I want something that is actually punishment. This doesn't sound much different than a retirement home.

    Parent
    Unless you're prevented (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jnicola on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:25:07 PM EST
    from leaving a retirement home, no, it isn't.

    The punishment is the deprivation of his liberty for the rest of his life. What more do you want? Revenge? For him to be treated as less than human? Frankly, the conditions at Garsten (translated description here) are conditions that should be the minimum standards of humane treatment for any prisoner.

    Parent

    yes, they want revenge (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:44:09 PM EST
    unfortunately.

    It's why I always talk about sentences of "life plus cancer" ...some people would actually impose it if it were available.

    At the beginning of the thread, JNicola, you mentioned retribution as a purpose of sentencing. I don't think retribution is a valid goal of sentencing. Rehabilitation, deterrence and punishment are. Would you consider swapping out retribution for punishment in your lexicon?

    Parent

    It bewilders me. (none / 0) (#55)
    by jnicola on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 04:52:56 AM EST
    Gilles de Rais raped several hundred children and murdered at least a hundred of them. And yet the community he'd outraged found enough humanity common to him and them to hold a procession praying for his soul. It would be nice if we could be as merciful as the poor of fifteenth century France; it doesn't seem a great deal to ask

    Re retribution - sorry, that somewhat pedantic list was really just a rehearsal of the standard accepted purposes punishment, as a generic idea, can serve. What weight a person gives to each is inherently up to their moral code and the context in which they're acting.

    Subject to that qualification, I can conceive of few situations I personally would consider retribution an important constituent of punishment. And in the context of a judge sentencing a criminal - having to issue a sentence punishing someone is a tragedy. It means that society is deliberately preventing someone from taking their part in it. The only excuse for it must be to protect society as much as possible, with everything that implies, but it must be limited as far as possible. Any errors should be on the side of mercy; I'd rather we were unnecessarily merciful than unnecessarily cruel.

    All of which is a long winded way of saying that I agree with you! Leave vengeance to God (or kismet, Allah, the Wheel, a person's inability to escape their own awareness of their cruelty, whatever); it isn't the business of a judge.

    Parent

    I believe you would be in a tiny (none / 0) (#57)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 07:30:22 AM EST
    minority world-wide with the view that retribution is a not a valid goal of sentencing for criminal offenses.

      Even most of those who have personal moral qualms about government directed retribution probably accept that because their personal view of morality  does not restrain others,  retribution is a necessary component of justice because the many people who believe retribution is morally warranted might well act on that belief if convinced the government will not.

      A society that ignores the likelihood that if it ignores widespread human beliefs and desires, it will cause individuals to act on those beliefs and desires in an even more unfair, disorderly and often cruel an barbaric fashion would probably create bigger problems.

      I think far more people would be amenable to the idea that appropriate retribution can be achieved with less harsh terms and conditions in many instances.

     

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#59)
    by jnicola on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 08:47:58 AM EST
    that my views would only be shared by a minority; I don't think it'd be a tiny minority, though. Most people haven't considered this question to the level where their opinions couldn't be changed; and I think an appeal to the better nature could work. Which is why it's important that a minority doesn't hide its views.

    It's worth noting that it'd be well within the Christian tradition, which is a point I've been making throughout the thread, whereas vengeful sentencing isn't, and given the number of people who describe themselves as Christian, that's a large group to appeal to. To quote the Catholic catechism (2266) -

    The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.



    Parent
    What is retribution? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 08:59:51 AM EST
      I'd define it as a punishment imposed to appease the emotions of the offended (a broader class than victims).

      Without question that should not be the only goal of a penal system, and I think most would agree that it should not be the primary goal.

      I think you give people far too little credit. People might not use the term "retribution" in casual conversation but I think the vast majority understand the concept and its role in penal systems.

      I'm not going to debate "Christian" beliefs both because I'm not one and because I think it's utterly disingenuous to claim there is one Christian voice on this or most things.

    Parent

    Retribution (none / 0) (#62)
    by jnicola on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 09:49:45 AM EST
    Classically, those that believe in retributive punishment are defined as those who believe that the infliction of suffering on a wrongdoer would be good in itself, even if it could be demonstrated to have no other benefits. That's what I mean by it, and I do not believe it has any place in modern penal systems.

    Appeasing the emotions of the offended would seem to fit into this. I think that's a dangerous idea. No-one has a right not to be offended, and if people take offence at actions that don't directly affect them, the law does not care about this. The law usually expects to see actual damage, and should take only this into account.

    I give people credit by assuming they haven't thought about it; had they thought about it and consciously decided to take a barbaric position I'd find that far more damning. There's evidence to support this as well - there's continual complaint in England about the lightness of the sentences magistrates give. However, whenever individuals are presented with the full facts of a case, the comparative sentencing options, and the results of the comparative sentencing options, 84% of them end up giving pretty much the same sentence as the magistrates did, and as many people are more merciful as are harsher. (Go here for more).

    I agree there isn't really one Christian voice, but it's not unreasonable to take the institutional view of each sect, where that can be determined, as being shared by most of the adherents of that sect. Particularly in the case of the Catholics, where adherence to the Catechism is not exactly optional, at least in theory.

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#64)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:13:31 AM EST
      I'm not qualified to discuss Christian theology beyond the broad observation there is no monolithic Christian view.

      I do vehemently disagree with this:

       "No-one has a right not [sic?] to be offended, and if people take offence at actions that don't directly affect them, the law does not care about this. The law usually expects to see actual damage, and should take only this into account"

      I believe everyone has the right to be offended by whatever one chooses to be offended. The only question in my mind, is to what extent and what means government acting through execution of laws should impose sanction that accounts for such feelings. There is a reason criminal actions are brought in the name of the state and not the name of the victim[s]. That reason is that our system reflects the belief of most people that crimes are wrongs against society as well as against the victims (and, of course, we have many "victimless crimes").

      The law doesn't and most people don't believe it should take into account only "actual damage." That's not even true in civil actions. Were it true in criminal actions, if I stole money from you then the only remedy for the State would be to make me pay you back with no further consequence to me.  More tellingly, if I killed you then your view would support what would be essentially be a state initiated wrongful death action. If you were a person with no family or legal beneficiaries, there would be no consequences to me for killing you.

      Is that really your idea of how it should be?

    Parent

    I mean (none / 0) (#66)
    by jnicola on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:50:37 AM EST
    that the law should only take into account actual damage to me if I claim anything from you through the law. It can inflict a separate penalty for the damage done to society, but that is society's business, not mine.

    Therefore, if you steal money from me, then yes, the only recompense I should be able to ask the State to ensure you provide me directly is the return of that money, and the cost of fixing any other damage your theft has directly inflicted on me. Separately, the State can and should punish you for breaking the part of the social compact which says that you shall not steal, but I do not derive and should not derive any benefit from that punishment in my role as victim, other than through being a member of society. Why, if you steal $50 should I have the right to take, say, $200 from you?

    And yes, if you kill me, it's the state's business to punish you for that killing, which is why murder is usually treated as a criminal action. My dependents should be able to claim on you for the monetary loss due to my death, sure, but no further.

    Regarding civil suits - I'm in England, which basically excludes punitive damages from civil suits except in incredibly rare circumstances, and doesn't seem much worse off for it.

    Parent

    One could make the argument (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:55:13 AM EST
    Why, if you steal $50 should I have the right to take, say, $200 from you?

    Because if I had to go through the pain of being robbed, then the hassle and expense to get my money back, why shouldn't you pay more than what you took?

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#69)
    by jnicola on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:08:57 AM EST
    I've already gone through the pain of being robbed; you can't undo it. If I've been put to actual expense as a result, for legal costs, medical, or whatever, and can demonstrate it to the satisfaction of the court, then you should repay that. The intangible costs to me the court can't deal with and shouldn't try. Otherwise a mugger who mugs someone phlegmatic who doesn't allow themselves to get upset by it, should be less harshly punished than a pickpocket who picks the pocket of someone neurotic who broods on it, which is pretty silly.

    Again, this is separate to the question of the penalty that society should impose for the breach of its law; it's relevant only to the question of how I as the victim can and should be compensated.

    Parent

    Yes, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:17:12 AM EST
      and everyone is a member of society and society speaking through its institutions empowers the state to impose criminal sanctions for purposes beyond mere restitution.

      That all just brings us back to the issue of whether retribution should be one of those pusposes.

      "Justice" means different things to different people. No one person's views (including a direct victim) should get to define what "justice" is in a particular case. However, society does speak to criminal justice and our society (and all others of which I am aware) have formed a consensus that retributive purposes are appropriate ones for penal syastems.

    The only divergence i see is in the degree and nature of punishment that different societies belive are needed for retributive (and all the other purposes).  How is Austria's system not accounting for retribution simply because its prisons are nicer places? How is Finland not merely because it relies on alternative sentencing in a broader range of cases? Is it not more accurate to state only that those countries believe retributive purposes can be fulfilled by imposing less harsh sanctions rather than stating they dismiss retribution as an appropriate goal among others?

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#71)
    by jnicola on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    and society, through democratic means, allows the views of each of us to be taken into account.

    Yes, most societies take retribution into account in their penal systems. But few of them make it a priority, and the tendency, I think, is away from it. Belgium, for instance, explicitly rejected it some years ago in favour of a restorative approach. (see here for more). And degrees matter; I'd rather a country which inflicted less suffering for retributive purposes than more.

    Parent

    Yes, degrees matter very much. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:13:07 PM EST
      I agree with those who think we should put more emphasis on rehabilitation -- which isn't the best word really because it connotes returning one to a former state rather than improving them. I also believe that in a great many real world cases sufficient retribution can be imposed through programs that do not involve incarcerating people and that properly administered such programs would be far more successful at "improving" offenders.

      I was only taking issue with the idea that retribution should not be among the purposes of a "civlized" penal system. I think that sort of extreme thinking is very misguided, although as I later suggested often the product of lazy analysis rather than actual belief.

     

    Parent

    It was not a good God (3.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 02:34:56 PM EST
    that caused this.

    And I am sure that you are better than him -- that you have not built a dungeon in your basement to imprison and rape your daughter for a quarter of a century and imprison your children by her, too.

    So I don't wish this for you.  And it doesn't matter what I wish, as you point out elsewhere.  So save your appeals to God for the victims.

    Parent

    Homo sum... (none / 0) (#24)
    by jnicola on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:06:58 PM EST
    ...humani nil a me alienum puto.

    No, I haven't done anything like this. But I could have and could still. The temptation of exerting that much power over another...if you can't imagine giving way to that temptation, then you're either a saint or you're lying. Either way, those that can't, or say they can't, imagine committing the sins they hear of, should not sit in judgement on other human people.

    And - thanks for the advice, but in my interpretation of Christianity, we pray to God for the sinners, and I think I'll carry on doing that.


    Parent

    You could do this? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:15:20 PM EST
    Then God help you, and there's no discussion possible.

    Parent
    Perhaps S/he "Could" (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:18:34 PM EST
    But you would do it, evidentially:

    I want him to never see (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    sunlight again, as his daughter did not for 24 years, as three of his children did not for all of their lives until now.



    Parent
    Could, not would. (none / 0) (#33)
    by jnicola on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:23:31 PM EST
    And if you say you couldn't, absolutely never possibly could, then I think you're lying, and you're certainly rejecting the first principle of humanism, summed up in Chremes' line - nothing human alien.

    Parent
    It's not a mutually exclusive process (none / 0) (#48)
    by MrConservative on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:17:28 PM EST
    Having compassion for victims and not wanting to be barbaric to offenders isn't a mutually exclusive deal.  I'd say that many of the "get tough" people I've met don't feel much compassion at all for victims, they just use them as human shields for their barbaric belief systems.  If a victim disagrees with the death penalty, for instance, they're automatically thrown under the bus.

    And there is no god.

    Parent

    Lack of freedom is severe punishment... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kdog on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    But we like to make our inmates suffer, punishment ain't enough for American tastes.

    Obviously Fritzl deserves to suffer, he deserves 1000 years of torture...but the Austrians appear to not want to race to the lowest denominator...and for that they deserve kudos.

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    It is no wonder that our prison system is so sadistic with long vengeful prison sentences. People in America are keen on punishment, rehabilitation and education not so much, going by the comments here. And this site tends to lean toward the left.

    I think we have a lot to learn from our Austrian friends. It is good to see that they are not modeling their prison system after ours.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 01:25:49 PM EST
    And these are the liberals!

    Guess them Texans can teach us a thing or two about "makin' 'em pay" after all.

    Parent

    "Liberals" (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:07:36 PM EST
    Liberals are not monolithic. We don't all believe exactly the same things on all subjects, though the authoritarians of the extreme left would deem it so.

    Extremists on both the left and right make me cringe. I don't march in lockstep with any group.


    Parent

    How Nostalgic (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    Reminds me of our most famous social liberal and his authoritarian rants invoking contempt for the "far left" whatever that is.

    Funny how some of the flock that landed in the last year share more with ppj than anyone on the "far left" as ppj would so generously place us.

    Things change.

    Parent

    Who is "our," aka your (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:16:48 PM EST
    most famous liberal?  Which country -- since you don't live in this one?  

    Parent
    Our Meaning TL (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:29:37 PM EST
    Your bud who you loved to chatter with about gardening and such. Knew that you two had more in common than gardening.

    His site tall cotton. I am sure he would love to hear from you.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 01:32:37 PM EST
    I think most americans are barbarians at heart. Riding high on their SUV's cheering on the Iraq war showed me more than I care to see. A justice system inherited from the wild west.

    I am happy to be living on a small island off the coast of America, although the prisons here are just as brutal, ask Bernie Madoff.


    Parent

    This is my problem (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by nyjets on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    "...but also attempts to bring the inmate back within the norms of society,"

    This would imply that the criminal should be let out of prison. Yes, some criminal should be let out if they are rehabilated. But, some criminals, based on there crimes, should never be let out even if they are 'rehabliated.' THe criminal in question should never let out. Treated humanely yes, but never let out.

    Yes (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 09:44:12 AM EST
    Personally, I don't want people like Fritzl or other rapists or murderers to ever be brought "back into the norms of society." Not a popular stance round here I know, but some criminals should never, ever see the light of day, nor ever be thought of again.  Throw away the key and move forward.

    Parent
    Never let out (none / 0) (#63)
    by jnicola on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 09:52:55 AM EST
    is not the same as never being allowed to see the light of day, or never being thought of again.

    Imprisoning someone for their whole life may be necessary, though regrettable. Treating them inhumanely, even if they've treated others that way, is not.

    Parent

    I guess (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:24:26 AM EST
    I don't think it's inhumane to deprive rapists and murderers of access to the internet or television, or playing in the yard (if it is, lots of parents are going to be in trouble for punishing their kids that way).

    As I said, I have no problem with locking these scum of the earth up and throwing away the key.  I'm not talking about beating them.  Give them proper sanitation, three square meals a day, and a bed.  Maybe some books in their cell. Maybe some fresh air for an hour or so (of course, that's more than their victims get). That's it.

    Parent

    We're not far off agreeing (none / 0) (#68)
    by jnicola on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:59:14 AM EST
    I just have a somewhat more liberal definition of the basics - deprivation of internet or TV, probably OK as long as they're provided with alternative means of intellectual stimulation and provocation. Access to daylight, essential; access to a gym/yard, no; access to some sort of appropriate exercise facilities to deal with the need to use up energy, yes. Access to other human beings - absolute requirement.

    Oh, I also think long-term prisoners should be given the option to commit suicide (under proper safeguards). One of the most fundamental human rights seems to me the option to end your life. I've never been quite sure where this fits in on the conservative to liberal scale of penal policy.

    Parent

    Retributive (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by JamesTX on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    justice is something that I can't see as being the the choice of a civilized society. Those who think people sentenced to long prison terms don't suffer simply don't understand what it means to have that happen to you. It is a form psychological torture -- being cut off from family, having parents die while you are incarcerated, losing contact with children, etc. It really is a form of "death". Anyone who thinks prison of any kind is preferable to freedom has obviously never lost their freedom. Although some facilities may have amenities that people think are costly or luxurious, the inmates almost always have very little true enjoyment of those amenities. The access is still controlled within the punitive framework of the prison. There is no prison that is anything like a "country club" to its inmates. That is simply a lie.

    It was the conservative republican movement which forced this retribution view on us, and now it is essentially the modal view because people with different opinions have been squelched and ostracized for so long. There are many wrongs people suffer in society where the government is not obligated to execute their retribution. The poor suffer injustices at the hands of the rich daily, but nobody can conceptualize retribution in those cases. Life isn't fair, and it is often dangerous. This man is obviously mentally ill, as any civilized person couldn't comprehend his behavior. Harshly punishing mentally ill people doesn't make any sense -- it is a throwback to the middle ages. It would be the same as wanting to torture a wild animal that attacks a human. Only the most un-reflective people would gain enjoyment or satisfaction from that kind of activity. But conservatism itself is a throwback to more primitive cognition. Protecting society from dangerous people in some way does make sense, but torturing those people and demanding that they be miserable is not something civilized people should crave as the overall goal of criminal justice. It shows there is something terribly backwards about us. It shows how animal-like the conservative movement has made us.

    Retribution (none / 0) (#49)
    by MrConservative on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:27:01 PM EST
    It's a payment nobody receives.

    Parent
    No American (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Mikeb302000 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:24:05 PM EST
    No American should criticize the Austrian system. Ours is the worst thing the First world has to offer.

    Besides, as a couple commenters mentioned, losing one's freedom is serious business regardless of how gilded the cage is.

    The lunatics (none / 0) (#1)
    by SOS on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:02:45 AM EST
    are in charge of the Asylum over there apparently.
    Conservatives control Austria? (none / 0) (#50)
    by MrConservative on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:27:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Sounds better than a nursing home (none / 0) (#2)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:21:23 AM EST
    1. emigrate to Austria at age 80-85
    2. commit a crime (with a minimum 15 year sentence)
    3. chose a nice prison


    Austrian prisons sound awfully nice (none / 0) (#8)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    The only thing missing is the spa treatments.

    Key word "sound"... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by kdog on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 01:23:07 PM EST
    Speaking for me, you could put me in the Playboy mansion and it is still torture if you're not allowed to come and go as you please.

    Parent
    50 mil people (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 01:38:23 PM EST
    voted a murderer into office for 8 years and we're suddenly all experts on justice and who walks in the paths of righteousness.

    Parent
    Well, I doubt that most (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:18:52 PM EST
    of the 50 million are not walking on the path that would call for "the next McVeigh."  

    Parent
    Their surrogate (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 04:56:37 PM EST
    already McVeighed the hell out of Iraq. I'll settle for a long overdue tornado sweeping clean a certain long neglected section of Crawford.

    Parent
    Sorry, Kdog (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    but I'm just going by what Jeralyn wrote about the place in her post.

    Prison isn't supposed to be pleasant. That's why it's prison. And sorry, again, but I have no sympathy for child rapists, especially when the victim is the perp's own child. He doesn't deserve anything resembling freedom.

    By the way, I grew up a few blocks from the Playboy Mansion. I've heard that these days it ain't what it used to be.

    Parent

    That's the point shoe... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 08:36:56 AM EST
    Prison by definition is not pleasant...for the simple fact you can't come and go as you please.  All the tv's, internet access, books, and views from a window don't change that fact.  

    Parent
    was that a intended (none / 0) (#21)
    by dead dancer on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 02:40:43 PM EST
    "come" and go at the playboy mansion

    Parent
    All is not well in Austria (none / 0) (#9)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    [link]
    [link]
    How can a country which has lurched to the right in recent years be so liberal when it comes to its prisons? Ironies never cease!

    And it lets Nazis run free (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    and not even face such hard choices of which prison will provide for them.

    Parent
    I hold no brief for Austria (none / 0) (#18)
    by jnicola on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    It's one of the few places I've experienced real, overt racism. But it has a statute of limitations. And it follows it. Would you rather they broke the law to better suit it to your particular morality?

    Parent
    Of course not. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 02:32:05 PM EST
    I would rather it would change the law.

    Wouldn't you?

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#22)
    by jnicola on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 02:46:12 PM EST
    The purposes of punishment, in the order of priority I consider appropriate, are rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, restoration, education and, a long, long way behind the others, retribution. And Austria keeps these a lot better in balance than most other countries I know, including having a reasonable statute of limitations.

    Do you really think the course of the next totalitarian movement will be affected in the least by the punishment doled out to a few carelessly picked representatives of one of the last?

    Parent

    No, I don't. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:14:38 PM EST
    And I agree with your priorities in most cases.  But not all cases.  There needs to be indication of ability and willingness for rehabilitation.

    Maybe you haven't read as much about this case, this guy, as I have.  No willingness there.

    Parent

    I'd be willing to bet (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jnicola on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:38:56 PM EST
    that I've followed it as least as closely as you. I read German; I have offices in Slovakia, which I usually go to via Austria; I've stopped in Amstetten before en route from Munich to Budapest (two of my favourite cities) and have therefore had a certain fascination with the case.

    But it's entirely irrelevant. Repentance is the only precondition for forgiveness, and I'm not arrogant or stupid enough to believe that there is any crime for which repentance is never possible. Bringing my religion into it, which you did below, it's worth remembering that the only person ever to be told by Jesus that he'd be in Paradise that day was a convicted criminal being crucified.

    And following forgiveness, there can be rehabilitation. That rehabilitation may never lead to freedom - I doubt it will in this case - as the other purposes of punishment need to be borne in the balance. But it might, and I'd be fine with that. What I would never be fine with is the repulsive idea that there are any crimes that should prevent the malefactor being treated as a human, with humanity.

    Parent

    You Missed This Part (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:57:08 PM EST
    The defendant first denied murder and enslavement but changed his plea to guilty after seeing testimony from his daughter.

    [snip]

    "I regret it with all my heart ... I can't make it right anymore," Fritzl told the court hours before the verdicts were announced.

    BBC

    Parent

    Humanity and Recidivism (none / 0) (#29)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:16:00 PM EST
    "Do you really think the course of the next totalitarian movement will be affected in the least by the punishment doled out to a few carelessly picked representatives of one of the last?"
    Reply to post # 22
    While I agree with the larger message of some commenters regarding the need to make prison more humane and educational, we would also do well to remember that Mein Kampf was written inside a prison with very liberal prison laws. Hitler also polished his oratorical skills inside the same prison while serving time before unleashing genocide on the world. I cannot think of any greater damage caused to the world through the ages than the one that originated from Hitler's recidivism.

    Parent
    His oratorical skills (none / 0) (#37)
    by jnicola on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:56:07 PM EST
    were not exactly that shabby beforehand. Remember that he was jailed for leading a putsch.

    And Mein Kampf had far less to do with Hitler's rise and subsequent genocides than hyper inflation, Versailles, the behaviour of France, the idiocy of Britain, the necessity for totalitarians to create an Enemy... I take the view that the rise of a demagogic dictator in Germany was essentially inevitable, given the times and absent any substantial change in the policies of the other European powers, and that the rise of any demagogic dictator would have resulted in millions of deaths. The soil from which Hitler grew was laid down by 1920, and something similar would have grown in it even if Hitler had been left to die in jail.

    (Also, Hitler was not uniquely demonstrative of man's inhumanity to man. Try reading Conquest on Stalin, particularly on the Holodomor, or something about the Taiping Rebellion, or the Naking Massacre, or the Great Leap Forward... Regarding Hitler as uniquely evil allows us to close our eyes to similar evils in history and around us now.)

    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 05:29:14 PM EST
    "Regarding Hitler as uniquely evil allows us to close our eyes to similar evils in history and around us now.)"

    It does no such thing. Hitler, and his deeds, were uniquely different. To condescendingly claim we're not capable of  condemning, and being repulsed by other genocides while concurrently understanding that Hitler's abominations were empirically, and morally, unique in modern history is personally offensive.

    Parent

    There is no settling (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jnicola on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:15:51 PM EST
    the point of precedency between a louse and a flea.

    I don't believe that Hitler's abominations were 'empirically, and morally, unique'. Empirically, and morally, I see no real difference between Stalin and Hitler, to bring the most obvious parallel, except possibly in the fact that Stalin killed more - but applying accountancy to genocide is hardly enlightening. Vorkuta, Kolyma, Norilsk, Magadan... The names may be less familiar than Treblinka or Birkenau, but I can't see any argument that they were less evil.  Solzhenitsyn summed up Gulag Archipelago with the line that "all the evil of the 20th century is possible everywhere on earth." And there's plenty of evidence in modern history to support this - Nanking, Rwanda, Burundi, Al Anfal, Darfur, Bangladesh, Cambodia...

    You may be able to draw distinctions between these evils, ranking them neatly according to some criteria or other. I can't, and I find the effort to do so at best unnecessary - and at worst repulsive.

    Parent

    That should have been (none / 0) (#39)
    by jnicola on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 04:21:16 PM EST
    The Nanking Massacre, sorry.

    Parent
    If the far right actually did takeover (none / 0) (#51)
    by MrConservative on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:35:41 PM EST
    There would be a massive change.  You'd see American style prisons and prison sentences popping up.  Even though the far right won a huge victory, they still have to deal with the moderate right, the socialists, and the liberals who wouldn't put up with that.

    Parent
    Pretty Weak (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:48:16 PM EST


    Misquoting Housman... (none / 0) (#46)
    by jnicola on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:25:46 PM EST
    For you to argue against me with nothing but ad hominems is just the way to foster in me that arrogant temper to which I owe my deplorable reputation.

    Seriously, while my opinions on this particular thread are strong, I would never claim they were infallible, but I'd expect them to be challeged with more than an assertion. I gave you some evidence to back up my opinion; you termed it a 'vast store of knowledge' which I think you meant to be derisory, though I must admit I take it as something of a compliment. However, if you consider Hitler's evils 'empirically' unique, by definition, you must have some direct experience or evidence for this? I'd really like to hear it - and I'm not joking. I admit that many people I respect hugely - Robert Conquest for example - would agree with you.

    Conquest argues that there was an intentionality to Nazi genocide which there was not to the genocide of Stalin. This seems unconvincing, though, on the basis that even if the consequences of the Gulag system were not intended at first, by the time the gulags had been running for some years the results were apparent, and yet Stalin's bureaucratic killing machine continued to send people there in the sure knowledge of what their fate would be. Conquest admitted this, of course, and claimed that this was the only intellectual justification he could come up with for a visceral reaction. Nonetheless, that visceral reaction is shared by many people. I share it; I just can't justify it in rational terms, and I don't trust my own judgments if they're irrational. I'd love to have a rational justification for the visceral reaction. Have you got one?

    Sorry to continue to flog this thread to death (none / 0) (#47)
    by jnicola on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:30:08 PM EST
    but I do want to suggest that anyone who's still reading it has a look at this description of the prison in question. Whether you agree with the approach or not, it's very different to what seems to be the American approach, and the questions of why, and what results they get with this approach, are interesting in themselves.

    No need to apologize (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:52:37 PM EST
    and thanks for the link.

    This is a criminal defense site whose purpose is to preserve and further the constitutional rights of those accused of crime.

    Commenters who feel differently can present their opinions in moderation, but they won't take over the site.

    One comment personally insulting you has been deleted.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#56)
    by jnicola on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 05:05:50 AM EST
    and sorry for not responding sooner; I'm in London at the moment and it was getting late here. Would it be possible, please, also to delete my response (message #46) to that message, as it doesn't really make sense in isolation. It might also be a good idea to delete squeaky's message (at #45) responding to the same message; at the moment it looks like he's disagreeing with your original post, and I don't think he would.

    Thanks also for the reassurance; I usually lurk here, and have done for a couple of years. Most of the time I see the points I would make made at least as well as I'd make them by plenty of other people. This thread simply seemed not to have the usual liberal outlook from some of the posters, so I joined in, but was concerned I was overdoing it.


    Parent

    Finland (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:23:46 PM EST
    Dan Gardner wrote a great series for the Ottowa Citizen a few years back, comparing the US and Finland's justice systems.

    Why Finland is soft on crime: While Canada, and especially the United States, have moved to tougher prisons and longer sentences, Finland has saved millions and prevented centuries of human misery doing the opposite.

    Finland's incarceration rate is just 52 per 100,000 people, less than half Canada's rate of 119 per 100,000 people and a tiny fraction of the American rate of 702.

    Mr. Salminen takes obvious pride in this record and hopes other countries draw lessons from it. He has visited Canadian prisons and, in many ways, he admires our system, particularly our rehabilitation programs. One such program is now the subject of a trial in Finland.

    "But at the same time," he notes, "there is a whole lot of Americanization." That worries Mr. Salminen, who, like all Finnish justice officials, thinks the wave of "tough on crime" policies in the United States is folly. If Canada goes further in the American direction, he warns, "you get the American problems, too."
    Austria's Superior Prison Philosophy | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment