Surely what this teaches us is this: work hard and pay your way, take out a student loan it will take you years to pay off and study. Or... become a criminal, rob or beat someone, or break into their home or steal their car or maybe even rape or murder someone... and not only get it all paid for on the taxpayer,but also study in an environment where you're not going to have to work as well to be able to eat and buy books.

Spend the money that would be put into making prisoners' lives comfortable into schools and education, because if there's one thing the majority of prisoners have in common it's a lack of education and opportunity. Waiting until they've committed a crime to give them an education sounds ridiculous to me.

They bachelor's degrees gave them potential for a career when they got on, rather than returning to selling drugs and what not. I don't know how prison works in the UK but in the US there is a high recidivism rate because when people get out they have little assistance with integrating back into society and with few job opportunities and the same group of often criminal friends they just settle back into their old lives.

They had free shelter, food, clothing, heating, and their degrees were entirely paid for, I think by a private donor. The Massachusetts government were discussing making it a tax-funded program in all the state's jails I do believe, but it was turned down because of fears that people who could not afford bachelor's degrees would commit crimes to go to jail.

I don't have any links; I remember it on the news and writing a research paper about it a few years back.

That's not what I asked about though. I asked what did 'The wonders who thought this was how to treat criminals'... what did they do for the victims at the hands of those criminals. Were the victims given years of free food, clothing, shelter, heating, electricity and a free education to degree level?

What's the name of the prison that you are referring to? See the bit in bold: you've more or less destroyed your whole argument: that's the very point some of us are making: it 'pays' to commit crime, it 'pays' to go to jail.

That was why the government decided against passing a law to make it a state-wide program.

I completely agree with spending more money on childhood education to prevent people from committing crimes in the first place, but I think it is also important to educate prisoners. It's not only for their benefit, but for the benefit of society as a whole. I think they should be required to have to pay for their degree, whether through working while in prison to paying while on the outside, like a loan.

I should have addressed the bolded part in my last post... however.

This again affirms my earlier post in regards to how people are brought up - that's where it starts off: the very people you mention above are brought up, raised to believe that breaking the law is the way to live.

It's about educating from early on, in childhood - not closing stable doors after horses have bolted.

Because it wasn't seen as a success then: for the very reasons I, and some others have stated : it was a cushy number with only the offenders and criminals benefitting: whilst the tax payers cough up the dough, and the victims get left to 'just get on with it' - with little, if any help at all.

The onus that was put on safeguarding the vulnerable before such as youth services have been crippled by cuts...
Wow pyra you read my mind was just about to mention that.
Getting to them before they enter the prison system would be much more cost effective....
In particular the work of the YJB, which I believe the government are trying to get rid off.

03 February 2012 318: Planning Act 2008 / Localism Act 2011 summary at 3 February 2012

The second day of debate on the Report stage of the Public Bodies Bill in the Lords yesterday saw the Government lose two divisions, firstly (by 225 votes to 162) on an amendment to remove the Youth Justice Board from Schedule 1 (bodies which can be abolished by order)

Oh sorry, I thought you were asking about the prisoners. I have no idea how or if the victims were compensated. I think they should be in some way, but the criminals would be the ones in need of the most help - not just so they can have better lives, but so that in the future people are made victims.

And I was merely qualifying my argument. I'm not totally for one side and totally against the other. I see the value in educating prisoners, but I don't think it's fair that they get their whole education paid for while other people work hard for it. I'm just offering an example of a program that worked to combat recidivism to give more insight into the topic.

I totally agree, but there is the problem of millions of prisoners to deal with.

Criminals are the ones in need of the most help. I find such a comment hard to believe - and poor old 70 year old OAPs , getting beaten black and blue, face smashed in whilst they lay sleeping peacefully in the 'safety' of her own home - gets a few thousand bucks and not much else other than living the rest of her years in utter fear.

What was the name of this prison that run this special program? You said it was near you? If it was on the news etc, it should be easy enough to look up (not you, I mean anyone who may be interested).

You will find that there are millions of victims to deal with also.

I'd say they took priority - the victims.

What has society become when the sympathy lies not for victims, but for criminals.

No wonder the world is going to hell.

If a criminal goes to jail, is released while living in terrible conditions and without prospects of a career or opportunities, they have a good chance of doing the same thing and making more people into victims. You think I'm saying that we should have more sympathy for a criminal than a victim, but what I'm actually saying is that the criminal needs the most help - they are the one who has committed the crime and they are the one who is likely to do the same thing again when they are released.

After a quick search it appears Boston College funded the program in Norfolk, Bay State, and Framingham prisons.

EDIT: Here's a link if you're interested

It's not as much sympathy for the criminals, but preventing criminals from making even more people into victims.

Which is precisely why prison should not be some easy jaunt for a few years, with access to many things that hard working non criminals, trying to keep an honest roof over their heads - can't afford. Sat tv, gyms, 3 square meals a day, never having to worry about it being a cold winter and not being able to turn the heating up high enough etc.

If it was a real deterrent: they wouldn't want to go back: they'd do everything in their power to avoid reoffending.

Thanks for the details - I'll have a little look - appreciated.

dont believ all you read and hear ?