Here is a presentation[1] of one of the maximum security prisons in Norway. If you treat people better you will have lower rates of reincarceration[2]. In essence, they are trying to create "good neighbors" out of the prisoners.
And we are certainly not a homogeneous society that many use as an argument that this would not work elsewhere.
In my city, Drammen, a bit outside of Oslo, about 1/3 of the population are not native Norwegians and there are over 100 nationalities here. My daughters school has over 30 nationalities. (And I don't think this is a bad thing)
Prisons like that are only possible in countries with a high percentage of tax paying citizens as is the case in Norway. Here in Africa there is simply no money for that.
I don't mean to sound patronizing and teach you about your own continent, but I heard the main problem with Africa is not lack of money. It's corruption. Africa has lots of space and natural resources. Those resources are mined, extracted and sold but profits go to a small caste of wealthy warlords and/or corrupt leaders.
And yes the climate is harsh. Especially the heat literally makes thinking hard. There was a study about government clerks in USA, their work effectiveness shot up by 20% once they got air conditioning.
In a way Africa is similar to Russian Federation. Both are vast, both have bad climate and both have lots of natural resources. Both are hamstrung by corruption.
> I don't mean to sound patronizing and teach you about your own continent
Thanks for your self-awareness, you are mostly wrong. It's not entirely your fault though, since gp generalized by saying "here in Africa" as if 1 billion people in 54 countries are a single amorphous blob.
> Those resources are mined, extracted and sold but profits go to a small caste of wealthy warlords and/or corrupt leaders.
There are probably less than 20 "warlords" in only 2-3 countries out of a billion Africans, and they likely control a region less than 1% of the total landmass. You are right there are corrupt leaders, but most of the profits do not go to them (as they are small-fry); they go to Western (or Chinese) multinationals, and perhaps even to your retirement fund.
> And yes the climate is harsh. Especially the heat literally makes thinking hard.
You are overgeneralizing to the point of being wrong - you probably are thinking of the Sahara. I have no idea where this "Africa is hot" trope originates, but most of sub-saharan africa has moderate temperatures[1]. Some regions receive snow every winter[2]
> In a way Africa is similar to Russian Federation.
In a way, Africa is dissimilar to the Russian Federation. It's 54 countries, has 2000 languages and is far larger. Larger than China, India, US, and most of Europe - combined![3]
edit: more ranting
I am continually surprised by HNers commenting authoritatively on Africa without first interrogating the source of their knowledge. Imagine a guy in Italy declaring all that's wrong with Silicon Valley based on what they've heard in the news and seen in pity-party ads by SV NGOs. "It's the existential fear of earthquakes that makes them short-sighted. The gentrification is real bad too"
> I have no idea where this "Africa is hot" trope originates
More than 25 percent of Africa is desert. Sahara is not the only desert in Africa.
Checked the forecasts of 10 largest cities in Africa, lowest avg. daily temperatures in Jan/July in Celsius.
Lagos: 30/26
Kinshasa: 27/29
Cairo: 18/34
Johannesburg: 24/14
Khartoum: 29/35
Dar es Salaam: 30/24
Alexandria: 16/26
Abidjan: 29/25
Algiers: 13/28
Kano: 21/26
The 4 sub-20 cities are either coastal cities or very close to the coast, those away from seas/oceans are what can be accurately described as "hot".
> most of sub-saharan africa has moderate temperatures
That climate map is deceptive. It may lead you to believe that "blue" areas are very cool, yet Kinshasa is in Congo, the country with the most blue/deep blue color on that climate map.
Kindu, a 172 000 town closest to the deep blue area on that map is 24/28, not the coolest place on Earth.
Maybe you can help me out and point out which temperatures you listed can be described as be "harsh"? The American south has summer averages hotter than all of them but I'm yet to hear anyone call Austin's climate "harsh"
I reread my message and I see that I misspoke and can easily be interpreted the way you say.
Also, the "method" I used is neither very sound nor in any way scientific. Just a very subjective level of comfort for me.
Allow me to add some clarity: I listed the lowest daytime temperature of ANY day of Jan/July, not avg temperature in a month.
According to that method Austin is 9/35.
Sub-25 Celsius is a temperature I find comfortable enough. And looking through the data Austin looks like it's good enough from late October through mid-April, so that's about 5.5 months of nice enough weather in my opinion. But a very hot summer is not something I like.
I'll be spending this winter in Vietnam, not so much for the comfort of it, but to travel and catch up with a few friends that relocated there.
Your definition may differ, or maybe mines is skewed from living in Australia, but I would consider most of those temperate, the only exceptions being Cairo and Khartoum.
> More than 25 percent of Africa is desert. Sahara is not the only desert in Africa.
Deserts get extremely cold because there's too little vegetation. Vegetation holds water. Water is amazing for storing warmth. Without humidity, it's up to the Sun, so very hot in day and cold at night.
Why there's no vegetation ? Because there's hot during the day.
This doesn't surprise me. Africa hosted the biggest war since WW II starting in 1998 and most people in the US and Europe couldn't tell you anything about it. Not even the name.
Sometimes it's impossible to have a conversation without generalization. While my post may have discredited my knowledge of Africa, the continent is a small hobby of mine, and I periodically read and watch movies about it. I'm even considering traveling there if I save enough money. To see and feel how it's like with my own eyes.
The disclaimer wasn't meant to spread magic dust over my post, just to show I realize my knowledge has blank spots.
I'm not looking forward to 54 separate conversations, and that's the the other extreme you're suggesting ? I also read many of Ryszard Kapuściński's books, I know sometimes you can have more than 50 languages on a single street. I also know about de-colonization and how many countries are still abused by the old colonial powers, it's just the form of abuse that changed (like economical exploitation or dumping e-waste).
Okay, I over-emphasized warlords. My fault. I should have said instead that Africa has a potential to have a lot of money, but is highly dysfunctional.
From what I read in Kapuściński's books, the corrupt officials may be small fry but they make exploitation by foreign powers possible. They are often put into power by foreign powers too.
According to Basil Davidson ("Black Mother"), the consequences of slave trade are much more devastating and lasting to this day than is generally thought. For some 300 years societies and kingdoms were rotting from inside and men were turned against each other. Wars were started to get more slaves. He listed many examples (like in the delta of Congo) where Africans fought against Europeans to get them out and stop the slave trade, but it was bloody hard to do. If you refused to trade in slaves, European ships arrived at your neighbors, sold guns to them and your neighbors could raid you. To completely stop it, it would require African kingdoms along the west coast at least to ally and cooperate. That was a hard problem. So another thing they tried was only selling a slave for a musket. Later, armed to the teeth, they could repel Europeans.
Africans were smart enough to realize the importance of seafaring ships. They (for example mani-kongo, the ruler of Congo) tried to buy them and pay for the technology. They were repeatedly refused.
What I'm trying to say is that it's very unfair to repeat the old propaganda of slave traders and say Europeans brought order to Africa. Africans had order and powerful, civilized kingdoms. At first Europeans were just thrown out by strong armies and diseases.
Fun fact: Africa had feudalism, just not on the scale dim Portuguese could comprehend. It had a feudalism of peoples. Tribe A is a vassal of tribe B, tribe C is a vassal of tribe B.
Europeans systematically destroyed Africa using corruption (slave trade). They mostly didn't come and kidnap slaves, they bought them until kingoms were thouroughly rotten and a foothold could be gained. This lasted for 300 years. Don't underestimate the power of 300 year old corruption on society.
Natural resources that can be mined do not make a country rich (not anymore). Fertile land and energy generation capacity help, but what does really make a difference is a universal and equal rule of law.
That idea that there isn't enough money for improving the justice system is self defeating in way too many ways.
It's like people didn't read your disclaimer before downvoting. This indeed is the stereotype we hear about Africa (and it's certainly true in the USA where the stereotype flourishes). I would love to see some of this information confirmed or repudiated.
This is a better pointer (not necessarily a good one, but it makes it easier to google for):
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39735802
(The article was linked from Hacker News).
From the article:
'''The boom in air conditioning is good news for many reasons.
Studies show that it lowers mortality during heat waves. Heat makes prison inmates fractious - air conditioning pays for itself by reducing fights.
When the temperature exceeds 21C or 22C in exam halls, students start to score lower in maths tests.
In offices, air conditioning makes us more productive: according to one early study, it made US government typists do 24% more work.
Economists have since confirmed that relationship between productivity and keeping cool.'''
Not least because reduced reincarceration rates translates to fewer people in prison where they cost the state a lot of money, when they could be out and participating in growing the economy.
That's all fine and good and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the Scandinavians about this.
But there's a huge component missing to this - and that is the rights of the victims.
There are quite a number of people who have 'committed a crime' and really are at no risk of re-offending in the first place.
A Montreal doctor, in a fit of fury, murdered his wife and children. I believe - with some basic help and observation, it's entirely unlikely he'd do such a thing again. I don't think for a second that 'prison' or even the 'threat of prison' factors into his likelihood of recitivism.
So the 're-integration' thing to do for this doctor would just be a little time in a psych/hospital, then re-integration and observation/checking-in on him.
But what about the wife? The kids that were murdered? What about their rights as victims?
If you 'slander' someone - you might have to pay them $100K.
But if you 'murder' them - there's nobody to pay?
This is a real issue - and more real in Scandinavia.
I have a distant relative who is Danish - a rough and tumble guy who hangs out with bikers. Over at his place for dinner one day (in Denmark) - the guy sitting beside me (who seemed rather normal if a tiny bit thuggish) - was a murderer.
He spent four years in jail for murdering someone, and was now in a 'half way house' for a couple of years. That's it.
I don't doubt that maybe his situation is optimized for 'non recidivism' - but there are moral questions with this.
Four years in a really nice jail - with Internet, a 'instrument' room with instruments, a goddam mixing panel to make tracks (!), a gym, half decent food - etc. - is just wrong.
Imagine if your mother/family member was ruthlessly murdered by her landlord.
He does four years in an easy prison. No worries. His property, holdings intact. He comes back as if it didn't happen, with a little bit of 'checking in' form the government?
We cannot think of crime just as a matter of 'recidivism rates' - yes - those are important - but the moral implications are equally as important.
Is how much "justice" the victim really equally important to the recidivism rates? I don't think it is.
If one treatment method is "more unjust" towards the victim, but it leads to a lower recidivism rate, I think we should use that one. For example, in the case of murder, I think it's obvious that it's in society's best interest to optimize the justice system around reducing the murder rate as a whole, not how much "justice" the victim receives.
Now, if there's 2 methods that (somehow) lead to the same recidivism rate, then we can consider the one that is "more just" towards the victim, but even then, I'm not 100% sure.
Note: I put justice in quotes not because I'm trying to minimize it (it's definitely that has to be considered, or people will lose faith in the system), but because it's an ill-defined term right now.
I personally think that the 'Doctor who murdered his wife and children' - should spend 30 years in jail - even if it might technically increase his likelihood to 'do it again'.
It's also hard because the US system - as a basis of discussion - is kind of a mess. Crazy rates of incarceration, aggressive prosecutors, racism, private prisons, massive prison gangs, overcrowding - etc. etc. - it's such an anomaly.
It's easy to point out how the US system utterly 'non optimal' and in some cases actually 'unjust' because it probably is.
Which also makes it hard to compare to Scandinavia.
I think we can probably 'get justice' and 'recidivism down' with a little common sense. Starting with ridiculous drug sentences etc..
I'm Russian and there used to be a popular anecdote here that 1/3 of the country is in prison, 1/3 guards them and 1/3 are relatives, waiting for the release of the prisoners.
Russian prisons are no resorts, with few if any facilities found in Scandinavian prisons, with terrible food and anything but humane attitude from the administration.
Out of people who spend there 4+ years and then go out VERY few are back to being normal. Most are simply broken (and I do not use that term lightly) unless they were hardened criminals for whom prison is merely another step in their career and they knew what they were getting into.
I don't think severe prison conditions are good for the society as a whole.
I'm not against programs to help re-integration at all - I think those are good.
But I still think that people should receive sentences that are commensurate with justice - not just recidivism.
Give people the sentences they deserve, and work on social integration towards the end of their term and after their release.
I know only about Russian prisons from a documentary I saw (so very little) - and they seem crazy hard-core - a little too rough - also dominated by gangs, which is bad. 'Gang culture' in prison is bad thing, so is violence - I think having people in those types of conditions is 'cruel and unusual' punishment.
I think the regular notion of prison is reasonable: i.e. not 'club med' but also not 'gang-land/rape-land'. And social programs are fine I think.
A bit of a tangent, but evidence such as this makes me fear the trend towards greater centralization and globalization of powers. In other words, it's not just that there are obvious benefits to competition, it's probably true that we need it to progress.
Not only. I live in France and while it's always difficult to really grasp public opinion, I'm pretty sure a large proportion of my fellow citizens thinks our prison aren't cruel enough. Actually, according to some poll, a majority even wishes death penalty were reinstated. Not quite the same thing, but still...
Only because we only ever talk about "Criminals" and "Prisoners" or "Offenders". Never by name, always by number. We dehumanize them and the system has been ignored because of it.
While seen as a whole this might be true, but if you look at the major cities the story is very different.
The latest statistic from Oslo[1] shows that 32.8% are immigrants and 40% of these are from Europe. So between 15-20% of Oslo are "non-western" immigrants which I think is what you are aiming for.
I don't know what counts as homogeneous and not, but if you walk around in Oslo you see a lot more colours than white :)
Cultural bonds tend to be stronger. I don't necessarily buy the arguments that follow from that premise but I do think there's some truth to that statement, especially because ethnic heterogeneity(sp?) tends to go hand in hand with immigration and hence mixing of cultures. I like the diversity of cultures that immigration brings, but some people like feeling as though they are part of a united whole.
Humans are tribal though, as in maximum 200 people. Everyone else is an "outsider". Everything above that number is the treated the same, regardless of ethnicity, as a foreigner.
You can't seriously suggest millions of people think the same because of their genetic markup.
> Humans are tribal though, as in maximum 200 people. Everyone else is an "outsider". Everything above that number is the treated the same, regardless of ethnicity, as a foreigner.
That's a cute idea, but it doesn't take more than a few minutes of reading the news, or a few hours of first hand observation, to find plenty of examples where people very much do not treat everyone outside their ≤ 200 person tribe “the same, regardless of ethnicity”.
> You can't seriously suggest millions of people think the same because of their genetic markup.
The grandparent post refers to culture and ethnicity (the latter being an identity of shared culture) not genetics. Culture is essentially shared ritual, values, and historical narrative, and, yes, shared culture is significantly about thinking the same way.
>>> That's a cute idea, but it doesn't take more than a few minutes of reading the news, or a few hours of first hand observation, to find plenty of examples where people very much do not treat everyone outside their ≤ 200 person tribe “the same, regardless of ethnicity
Um... Yeah, exactly. What's your point? It was a point of gossip to marry someone from the next village. So yeah, strangers were bad.
>>> The grandparent post refers to culture and ethnicity (the latter being an identity of shared culture) not genetics.
So... Like what is the relationship between a homogenous culture and crime rate again?!
You actually think people wouldn't kill themselves because they are from the same culture?
Ethnicity is not genetic. It's a social construct that refers to groups based on shared culture / language / nationality. The genetic similarity comes from reproduction among the population as a whole over a period of time. It's a consequence, not the cause.
I raised it because it is very commonly used as an argument against this system because "$ETHNIC_GROUP of people is so bad they can never be recovered".
And I don't think it matters, what matters is that all members of the society feels included and a part of it regardless of their origins.
But the latter is probably easier to achieve in a homogeneous society and you don't have to deal with xenophobia.
The median across countries is probably quite high. E.g. Japan is 98.5% ethnically Japanese. The US is an extreme outlier. No single ethnic group makes up more than about 20% of the population.
Um... I don't see why that matters. It isn't like this is the country of choice for a lot of folks. It is cold and dark sometimes. Things are expensive, and sometimes there isn't a lot of choice at the stores - especially in the smaller places.
I'm an immigrant in Norway - I'm from the US. A lot of folks I talk to are Norwegian, spouse included. (I'm in Trondheim, so there is much more diversity here in the city). Like everywhere, there is some anti-immigrant sentiment if you look in the right places.
But mostly, I feel included - that goes along with the general values of the nation. Heck, the kind gives speeches of inclusion. The linked speech is a common example [1, english subtitles]. The local school has messages saying "people are different, and that's OK" and "just because people are different, we still include people" (not direct translations).
Having a homogenous society doesn't matter so much when the society tries to be inclusive as a whole. That doesn't happen so much in the US, even as a citizen.
Edit: The US isn't even the most ethnically diverse place, so I fail to take that as an excuse. Both the US and Mexico are more diverse. [2]. Also, forgot to link the speech above.
The US is 61% non-Hispanic white, which is not a single ethnicity but a grouping that includes everything from Irish to North Africans. And of course there is a long history of race-based conflict between those groups (e.g. see the local politics in Chicago or NYC).
> The US is 61% non-Hispanic white, which is not a single ethnicity
The idea that "non-Hispanic white american" is not a distinct ethnic identity (usually just "White American" or even "American", with Hispanics viewed as non-White , actual ancestry aside, outside of bureaucratic systems and foreign in ethnicity) despite recognition of distinct national origin, is somewhat dubious. Its true that some of those national origins historically were viewed more as distinct ethnicities and even treated as just as non-"White American" as Blacks (or, perhaps more germane to the point, White Hispanics) are now, but while the national identities persist, that treatment has largely changed. I mean, sure there is a time when by virtue of his mere name Bill O'Reilly would be a reviled enemy of the nativist defenders of White American identity, rather than in a position to be an icon of nativism. But that time is long past.
>>> So, the 75% of America that is 'Ethnically European' is already very varied
Maybe genetically (although even that is debatable). But after a few generations you kind of iron out the differences between, say, a German - American and a Polish - American.
The differences between Germans and Polish are much larger. They speak German and Polish for instance vs just English.
Where did you get the numbers for France? I though that it not possible to do any ethnic census there?
Perhaps it could have been done by asking for countries of birth for the parents/grandparents.
Also when you are saying colonies, is it the former colonies (North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Ex-Indochina) or the current overseas departments (in the Carribean, Guiana in South America and in the Indian Ocean)?
Norwegian and USA societies are vastly different. There is absolutely no reason that something that works in one country will work in the other.
For instance, look at the gun ownership/gun crime rates.
I want to add another comment, which is slightly more difficult. You say that your daughters school "has over 30 nationalities, and that it's not a bad thing". I admire you for this. BUT I don't think it's representative of how Norwegian society is, judging from my 6 months working in Oslo.
> There is absolutely no reason that something that works in one country will work in the other.
Nope. There are plenty of reason to expect that, and it should be the default assumption. People don't become aliens just because they were born at the wrong side of an imaginary line.
If you would like to protest that assumption, it is up to you to provide data.
> For instance, look at the gun ownership/gun crime rates.
Could you expand on this?
Norway ranks at 6th place in number of guns per 100 inhabitants and 39th in number of firearm-related deaths per 100,000 population per year. The US ranks 1st and 11th respectively, having 3.6 times the number of guns per 100 people and 6 times the number of firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people compared to Norway. [1]
I don't know how Wikipedia shows that - following the links at the bottom gives 33599 US deaths in 2014 with 270-310M guns for ratios of 0.0001244 - 0.0001084 deaths per gun.
For Japan in 2014, 6 deaths in 2014 with 710K guns for a ratio of 0.0000085 deaths per gun.
Double-checking, the US has 5600 x more deaths with 380-435 x more guns for a ratio of 12-14 more deaths per gun.
> Norwegian and USA societies are vastly different. There is absolutely no reason that something that works in one country will work in the other.
Can you elaborate on which social differences you think might make it difficult or impossible to implement a Norwegian-style justice system in the USA?
You need the whole social structure that goes with it, not just the prison system.
It includes the social security net, health care system, education, low corruption etc.
The corruption part is actually quite important. Even if you do not call lobbyism corruption it has the same effect and people can see that decisions are not made "for the people", but for the money. This drastically lowers institutional trust and will affect all of society.
None of those things ("social security net, health care system, education, low corruption etc.") are necessary conditions for the USA though, and if Americans were willing to consider rational arguments for prison reform then they might also be willing to consider rational arguments for reforms in those other areas. It's not obvious to me that those things represent vast social differences, per-se, but that is obviously a matter of interpretation - I was really interested in hearing HalfwayToDice's view on what that phrase meant.
To respond (with a question) to your point, do you think that any of those areas can be successfully reformed individually, eventually making it possible for the USA to reform its prison system, or do you think they are all so interdependent that none can be changed without changing the other?
I agree that they are vastly different and I don't think you can expect the prisoners that have been conditioned to be animals to change overnight. I'm not saying the way used here is the ultimate solution, however it seems to work better. In the presentation you can see that a hardened criminal has a very long path through the system before they are released.
In regards to the society. There are always many different views and situations, however mine is not uncommon. I know there are some that do not look favorably on this but they are from my experiences in the minority. Most people I know are more in line with this man[1]. Personally I think that a diverse society is a strength rather than a weakness.
I am a native Norwegian so that might have something to do with my experience and I won't say you have not had another in Oslo.
And we are certainly not a homogeneous society that many use as an argument that this would not work elsewhere.
In my city, Drammen, a bit outside of Oslo, about 1/3 of the population are not native Norwegians and there are over 100 nationalities here. My daughters school has over 30 nationalities. (And I don't think this is a bad thing)
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB037gVIpJc
[2]http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-...