From your linked article: Based on meta-analyses of treatment studies, they found that in rehabilitation programs that conformed to the principles of effective intervention, recidivism was about 25 percentage points lower in the treatment as opposed to the control group (Andrews and Bonta; Cullen and Gendreau).
Where in the article did you derive your 10% number from ?
Yea, getting access to a good Neumann mic seems like an even trade for getting shanked or violently raped on a daily basis.
the existing research, which now involves hundreds of evaluation studies, shows that rehabilitation programs reduce recidivism about 10 percentage points
According to this article Norwayâs prison system is quite successful.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12
10% seems like a good number start with. It seems that if a society can keep 1 out of 10 criminals from reoffending then after a few generations, the numbers will rise.
The same amount of money being spent on childhood poverty could produce even better numbers.
Well thatâs one way of looking at it. My view is that itâs a 90% failiure rate. By and large, ineffective.
Well gosh they were giving them sharp knives to cook with, so I assumed nobody was being violent! Seemed like a chill summer camp type of vibe.
You a glass-half-empty kind of guy, then? 
Iâm neither an optimist nor a pessimist, since both involve a disregarding the facts in order to hold a disproportionate outlook. i tend to look at the facts and make a judgement on them.
Anyone who looks at the facts as a âglass-half-fullâ person and regards them as positive need to go back to school and learn some maths.
I agree re: maths.
The sentence you quoted and the one that follows:
âUsing this method, the existing research, which now involves hundreds of evaluation studies, shows that rehabilitation programs reduce recidivism about 10 percentage points. Thus, if a *control* group had a recidivism rate of 55 percent, the *treatment* group's rate of re-offending would be 45 percent.â
So, 55% to 45%. Yes, thatâs 10% less. But that doesnât mean itâs a 90% failure rate.
If it reduced it from 10% to 0%, that would also be 10% less, but also be a 100% success rate.
And this is the combined result across hundreds of evaluation studies - presumably, involving different methods across all kinds of different situations and external circumstances. Some will have been more successful, others less. Maybe a handful showed impressive results, and hundreds of others were total failures. The article simply doesnât give us enough data to go on!
You are correct that the article is woefully short of data.
You canât compare there prison funding with the funding for community centres from where you live 
I canât speak of Norway, but in my neighbours country, Holland, there youth centreâs all have professional PA gear. Compare that to where I live (Belgium) and youâll scratch your hair for a long time 
To punish them without inflicting to much unnecessarry damage especially mental damage, so some day they will be able to function in soceity upon release. Do you want a guy that had to shit into a bucket and suck dick for protection everyday, and is now so used to it, that thinks rape is a fun afternoon activity, as a neighbour? I think someone that had the opportunity to work on himself as a human being and educate himslef and maybe even learn a trade, so he can find himself a job when he gets out, instead of going back to where he got jailed for in the first place, is a better option.
Ofcourse there are exeptions like psychopaths. But then they are exeptions⊠They are more like mental patients who belong in some sort of mental house prison.
But they have a completely different approach from the bottom up then American jails or law system.
And as a result they even have already closed several prisons because they are not needed anymore. This is also due to there criminal law. They do a lot more things with fines. Plus they fine according to you income. At least in Finlnand, not 100% sure in Normway to. So if you earn ± 1500$ a month and park in the wrong spot, you may get 50$ fine, and if you earn 6000$ a month , you get a 200$ fine. Believe me, a guy earning 5.000.000$ a month wil scratch his hair as well if he has to pay ± 170.000$ for parking wrong
As has already been discussed, itâs a nice idea, but it doesnât actually work.
No I donât, and bearing in mind Iâm not the one who committed the crime, I believe I have a right to be protected from such an occurrence. (I donât mean a legal right as it stands necessarily, Iâm voicing an opinion.)
It is clearly a snapshot of what is happening currently, and that is the relevant point. You can project and even extrapolate, based on the methods and results of your preferred choice, but the facts are as stated.
Thats a strong claim, especially since you canât realy back that up. First off there are multiple examples in my country alone where a more humane approach has had way better results in preventing relapses.
And second this is only been tried for the last couple of decads which is not realy significant.
Plus it is still in its babyshoes. Canât expect a developing system to provide an outcome that predates âfinishingâ development.
Pretty short sided In these things there is no emmidiate succes solution. If youâre a bit realistic a 10% decline in that short of time can be considered a great succes. These are things that build on top of eachother. Its like changing the way halve the curriculums in school are being given, and expect a 100% improvement with all kids⊠Thereâs a difference in putting noumbers in perspective to other numbers, and numbers to humans.
Alright, so subject closed ?
Yes I can; 10% success rate, 90% failure. These are the real-world facts.
Please provide the data.
Man, itâs the data we have. You can only draw conclusions based on the relevant data. Anything else is conjecture.
No, youâre talking about anything BUT realistic - literally. Sure, maybe we could persevere and see if we can improve on these figures, but for now, these are the only figures we have.
So in your opinion, does society reap a greater benefit from giving that PA year to youth, or those U87âs to prisoners along with that C24, argosy, midfields, traps, Motif, and Gibson guitars?
Even if we say this stuff is for bettering them and entertaining them, why not stick them with an AT2020, a scarlet, a set of KRKâs and a copy of Reaper? Wouldnât that make more sense?
Yes it would. But I canât know what the motivation behind those choices are. What I do know is that its not like they get everything for free there. They hav eto work to earn money, and pay for their luxerys.
Plus I think they also recover money made by their label "criminal recordsââ which is used if they want to put their music on the market.
This is more your interpretation of those facts. The fact is that there is a decline of 10%. The only thing it says that its 10% better then without it. I donât see why you interpret it as 90% worse. Without it 100 % fail rate, with it 90% fail rate. That is 10% improvement. Is it all fixed? Ofcourse not, but neglecting the improvement, and therefore shutting down any possible future progress doesnât help anyone. you have to both acknowledge the proâs and conâs.
And that is that it is an improvement.
Do you understand how complicated these things are ? I mean, âchangingâ how people act. For instance. Psychological damage inflicted cause of unstable households takes about 3 generations to sort of grow out of it. If the conditions are sort of right that is. And this is with people who are more or less free and live in a ânaturelâ invironment. A prison is highly unnatural and therefor makes it a lot harder to get progress. Thats the motivation for some countryâs to make the incarseration resemble the outside world as much as possible.
I would if I could. I wouldnât even know how to get them, plus if I did, Iâd had to transelate it all cause I donât think you can read Dutch. I might be deontologically in violation with the following which Iâm going to say but I bet the chances are small anyone of my country will read this cause I think Iâm one of the only Belgians here.
I can only talk of my own experience and those of my colleagues. I am a prisonguard myself, and my wife is a prisondirector who is also involved with international projects involving topics as radicalisation and internal policyâs. So I think we at least have some experience on the topic.
In 2005 we introduced âbasic lawâ for inmates. This is a piece of law that governs the rights and dutys of inmates. These laws go from basic needs to what kinds of punishments can be used for which degree of crime inside the prison. So since then we can no longer do as we please with them sort of speak. This brought a lot of change in how we work with inmates. We are no longer alowed to use violance, we have no weapons exept a pen to right reports on them, and our mouth and knowledge of there rights and dutyâs. But donât forget this is only one thing in an otherwise still very broken system. Not every one in jail are rapists pedofiles or psychotic murderers. A lot of them are people who made wrong choices and come from situations where it is A LOT harder to make the right choice, especially when you are very young and have no stable rolemodles. It doesnât mean that because we try to treat them as humain as possible, that we are forgetting what they have done wrong. On the contrairy. We try to make them as aware as possible of where there privious live choices got them. If I look at my own experience in those changes, compare that to experiences of colleagues who are doing thise way longer then I am, I can say that the general trend is more positive then negative. imate on inmate violance is down, inmate on staff violance is way down. Giving them chances to exersize and have some form of a social life inside the prison, letting them verbally ventilate instead of treating them as a machine, all contribute to this. We call in âdynamic safetyâ. This gets you a lot further then higher walls and more guns.
Iâd like to see some numbers about violance in prisons in America compared with any prison in Europe.
No you donât have that right. A person who has carried out his sentence and is being released, is again a free man. He had his punishment, and is now free to engage in soceity with the same freedoms as you. So you have no right AT ALL, to say a person like that canât live in the house next to you. That is btw kind of a snowflake atitude as well if you donât mind me calling on the hypocrisy