Posted on 07/08/2004 4:35:20 PM PDT by quidnunc
Comparison is one of the ways by which we learn about the world; and yet how rarely do we make the kind of comparisons that would put our problems in a wider perspective. We prefer to live in a nationally solipsistic world, which is self-sufficient and flatters us into believing that it is unique: uniquely good or uniquely bad, as the case may be. Uniqueness is the quality that we value above all others, for it reassures us that we have a character or personality of our own.
Most people who write about the state of British prisons, usually with generous indignation, forget that our nearest neighbour is France, a country with a similar population (I speak only of its size) and of comparable wealth. Often, for example, the fact that we have more prisoners than any other western European country is cited as a symptom of the excessive and brutal punitiveness of our law.
While it is true that France has fewer prisoners than Britain, it is not by orders of magnitude: approximately 60,000 against approximately 70,000. When one considers that the number of recorded crimes in France is about 80 per cent of that in Britain, then — assuming the official figures of either country have any connection with reality, which is far from certain — it follows that France actually has a higher prison population relative to the crimes committed than Britain does. Whether you consider this is a good thing or a bad thing depends, I suppose, on whether you consider that imprisonment is a cause of or a response to criminality. What is clear, though, is that France and Britain are not so very different, at least in this respect, as is commonly supposed.
What of the quality of French prisons? Are British prisons uniquely squalid, overcrowded, violent, and so forth?
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.co.uk ...
Interesting conclusion.
"If the principal cause of crime is the decision to commit it, then the removal of a justifying sense of grievance is of great importance."
I think the mentality of the person who drew the conclusion must be more interesting. Why does he think he can get away with stating a premise this way? The removal of that "justifying sense of grievance" can be done with a horse whip, or with 30 years hard time. This sense of grievance is important only to the bedwetters who think this way. I say, if he's hanged, he won't feel any more grievances, so if it's so important to remove it, hang him and be done with it!
Compare the attitude of a Booker T. Washington, who was actually born into slavery, and spent his life urging his people to get an education with that of a Jesse Jackson, who hasn't done an honest day's work in 40 years, and spends his life urging his people to milk the political system instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.