General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAn American Warden Visited A Norwegian Prison, And He Couldn't Believe What He Saw
http://www.businessinsider.com/an-american-warden-visited-a-norwegian-prison--and-he-couldnt-believe-what-he-saw-2014-10Retired superintendent James Conway is a 38-year veteran of the Attica Correctional Facility in New York. He spent none of that time pitying his inmates.
"It was your actions that put yourself here," he said, referring to the prisoners. "Who cares how they feel?"
Well, Conway experienced quite a shock when he visited Halden Prison, one of the newest correctional facilities in Norway.
In an excerpt from a made-for-TV documentary called "The Norden," Jan Stromnes, deputy head of the prison, takes Conway on a tour of the premises and he couldn't believe what he saw.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/an-american-warden-visited-a-norwegian-prison--and-he-couldnt-believe-what-he-saw-2014-10#ixzz3GmISOyOT
yuiyoshida
(41,764 posts)yuiyoshida
(41,764 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)something is wrong with Americas prison system.
Calista241
(5,584 posts)Should land someone in prison. The drug war is failing our country and our population.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Like in the Ferguson community. hand out 'tickets' for everything, people go to the local courts to pay the fines. Court started early, mark the ticketed as a 'no show', and they get more fines and warrants.
It was stated every home in Ferguson had average of 3 warrants? This kind of local oppression by the Local State gov. happens across America in many communities.
It is up to the States to control their local govs and police and prisons. Many states turn a blind eye because of the revenue stream.
iscooterliberally
(2,849 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)for starters, which reflects the culture we inherited at birth AND continue to enshrine with the glorification of a fascistic law "enforcement" apparatus which is completely designed to protect the 1% from the 99%.
If and when we should ever shift or flip that paradigm we can look to actually developing a rational system of rehabilitation that actually has a chance of success.
Prisons should be a burden on society and no one should profit from them.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)a disgrace to our nation. There have been many Hollywood movies showing
American prisons to be brutal and sadistic -- with primitive guards enjoying
making life more miserable for the prisoners. Anyway, this has become our
reputation.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)avebury
(10,946 posts)system a for profit business, not looking to help people to turn people around (which would cut into private prison income).
annabanana
(52,791 posts)not so much
whathehell
(28,969 posts)Beyond that fact that America is FAR more diverse than Scandinavia, a situation
that always causes more tensions in societies, there's been more than a few
hateful responses to the relatively low amount of diversity they do have:
http://www.wbez.org/episode-segments/2011-07-25/norway-massacre-perpetrator-linked-scandinavian-right-wing-hate-groups-8
There's more, too....Google "Right Wing Extremism in Scandinavia" and you won't come up empty, believe me.
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)whathehell
The far right in Scandinavia - is a small minority with not mutch power - specially in Norway - but what they lack in numbers - they do in danger to the population - as most political minded violence for the last 70 year - have been from the far right - the last one - who ABB provided in 2011 - was posible the worst for over 70 years....
But you are correct - US is a far more diverse country than most of scandinavia....
Diclotican
whathehell
(28,969 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Clearly, all of the western and developed nations have functional healthcare systems, affordable or free healthcare, affordable or free education, superior mass transportation / train systems, low crime rates, etc...
America's roots really are against being "civilized" as in that America was the rebellious country with a high focus on individualism, as well as a distrust of government, stuff that doesn't encourage a civilized society. Progressives, including the two Roosevelts, have done a lot to make America more civilized, but the regressive Republicans especially within the past 20 years have been doing a lot to reverse all the progress.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)aggression-prone can anyone get? They are not only proud of their sloppy manners, they
seem to revel in them.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)annabanana
(52,791 posts)What is Norway's recidivism rate?
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)Seriously, I could see a prison system about halfway between our model and theirs.
I can see moving up in living arrangements for good behavior; after all, isn't the point of prison to punish, protect the general public, "and" rehabilitate? Convicted criminals serious about changing their lives (good behavior, making progress in education and vocational classes, etc.) would work towards a somewhat more liberal living setting - maybe in three stages. Normal prison setting, then a prison setting with more privacy and ownership rights of material goods, etc., and then some type of group living in prison a bit similar to the video for the last one to five years.
However, how long of a sentence do we want rapists and murderers to serve? Does the guy who murdered his wife and kids really get to the third stage of living arrangements?
I'm afraid I still believe in life without parole and have no desire to prepare some folks for the outside world. More humane treatment? Yes. Released ever? No.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/18/prison-could-be-productive/norways-prisons-are-doing-something-right
happyslug
(14,779 posts)http://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf
The same report shows America's recidivism rate at 52%.
The report then states different countries count recidivism differently, but ignores the fact that most people who are released and over age 35 almost NEVER go back to prison, even in the US, while you have a lot of repeat arrests of teenagers and people in the 20ss for minor crimes such as burglary, NON-armed Robbery and drug dealing.
In another report (which is more an attack on private prisons but state some good facts) states the following:
http://www.dropoutprevention.org/engage/incarceration-within-american-and-nordic-prisons/
Some more comments from the same report:
Every dollar spent on education yields more than two dollars in savings from avoiding reincarceration alone. This is significant in an era of state budget pressures when our national (state and federal) corrections budget consumes more than $50 billion a year (p. 403).
Yet, the mere implementation of these programs has been a challenge. According to Coylewright (2004), only 33% of offenders receive educational training prior to release.
http://www.dropoutprevention.org/engage/incarceration-within-american-and-nordic-prisons/
spike91nz
(180 posts)Diclotican
(5,095 posts)annabanana
I think the recidivism rate in Norway are at the 20 percent level - in the US on the other hand - it is more than 50 percent..... So we do something right in our Justice system I suspect - when just 20 percent of our criminals re-offend after been put in a prison for a short or longer time....
Diclotican
annabanana
(52,791 posts)then great things are possible.
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)annabanana
I do believe in reforming people rather than just revenge and to punish people who have been doing wrong things - mostly because I still believe in the good of others - and that everyone is able to reform if getting time - and some good advice on the way...
Of course - some, very few ones can not reform - and will not reform - like Anders Breivik who have stated rather clearly that he wanted to do what he did in 2011 again - if given the possibility - and I doubt he would be given his freedom even after 21 year in prison - or maybe even more as he can be kept in protective custody for many years to come - at least 30 or 35 years in all.... By then he should be a rather old man who might not be able to do to much danger....
Diclotican
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)They are a remarkably hard working and prosperous people.
They are also almost uni-ethnic
Not having a lot of diversity means there is more social cohesion. They see criminals not as the other, but people who need help and correction.
America's diversity prevents many sensible things.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)People are taught to see diversity as a divider rather than a chance to have new experiences. The US also has 64X as many citizens as Norway, but that doesn't excuse us. We also have a cultural problem / obsession with punishment rather than rehabilitation. It's short-sighted and dangerous.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)I'm sick and tired of racial conflict in this country. I like to hope it's not inevitable too, but I don't see how it can be changed.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)....that leads to division or integration.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Are you saying every type of diversity is a chance at a new experience?
Diversity is diverse. Diversity is messy. Some can see it as a divider, others can see it as a new experience, others somewhere in between.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Conservative Protestants have had a big impact on American culture, including a belief in punishment instead of rehabilitation.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)the way people accused of being witches were treated, back in the 17th Century.
And these were mostly (if not all) whites. So race doesn't play much of a role here.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)That is pure BS. Racism and bigotry has to be carefully taught. It is NOT a natural part of people. It is taught by parents, schools the Koch brothers organizations and the corporate media. If it was natural, then Norwegians would all be dividing themselves up based on shades of white, or kids would be dividing themselves up into groups based upon other differences like eye and hair color.
Just like racism and bigotry has to be carefully taught, tolerance can also be taught to people who have acquired racism and bigotry.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 21, 2014, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)
China? Nope, the Han keep everyone under their thumb.
Russia? There is this little war in Ukraine, Chechnia has been a thorn in their side for hundreds of years. Never mind the Tartar Yoke.
India? Caste system, etc.
Iraq?
Isreal?
South Africa?
The Americas?
You get my point. If one travels the world one figures out pretty fast that the default human condition is racism. Humans have a strong in-group preference. That is human nature.
It can only be fought with education. And you have to really fight against it.
tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)Are choices in civilization.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)universally made.
Though the US has spent 400 years making damned sure that the divisions have been reinforced, used as the primary political wedge issue and reified in every way possible.
tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)Racism and bigotry have become embedded in our institutions, government and business.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)of people must fight over the remains, you will have a divisions of people based on bigotry and racism. This is due to the fact that it forces the majority of people to compete for ever dwindling resources. If everyone were given economic equality, given the same chance to succeed, than the influence of bigoted and racist people would dwindle and there would be a lot less ethnic infighting.
There will always be evil people who want to ensure infighting but if economic success were not based on it, their influence would seriously be undermined.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)long predates modern capitalism. Not that it can't be transcended in some cases, though. Capitalists are just smart enough to use tribalism as a wedge issue to keep the oppressed and downtrodden from joining together and making the capitalists walk the plank.
tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)"divisions of people based on bigotry and racism. This is due to the fact that it forces the majority of people to compete for ever dwindling resources."
Those people who identify with the bigoted and racist views, with the most to lose, fail to realize they are acting against themselves as they fight with their so called enemies for those dwindling resources..
It's a vicious circle they're creating for themselves.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)their society was strictly divided -- by class! Before people from non-white countries
went there, England was, and probably still is, the most class-conscious nation in the
world. At the top was Royalty, then came the High Nobility, then the Low Nobility,
then the Commoners. If you think the Nobility would consider marrying a Commoner,
think again. There will always be rare exceptions, of course. And, my hat off to them!
Today, money plays a big role, even among Commoners. I know an Englishman who
is a retired school-teacher. It would be rare indeed to come across someone more
knowledgeable than he. Not long ago he happened to be among a group who were
well-off financially. Before long the question of money was brought up, and he was
asked why didn't he stay " where he belonged!!!"
One would think that a commoner, who has gone through all that from those "above"
him, would be different. I suppose many are different because they think for them-
selves. But there are many who actively join in the class-system, because deep down
they have accepted it and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. It's in their blood.
The above applies almost everywhere, but, England, I believe, still takes the cake.
Edited addition: For some, there will always be some reason for increasing separation.
If race and class weren't already there, something else will be invented to take their
places. It's the need to feel oneself "better than" the others. People who feel
comfortable and secure about themselves don't have this need.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)And it is very useful for capitalism to work.
The oligarchy that controls most capitalist countries needs a lower class, a throw away people to run on cheap, cheap labor. They need 2 classes. One to buy and one to abuse so they can make money. Racism and bigotry taught in schools and through the media ensures there is a lower class to abuse. This handy bigotry can be smothered with better education, socialism, equatable economic regulation and awareness. It can get more complicated based upon what ethnic groups are fighting over the marketplace and wealth but in a nutshell capitalism runs best when bigotry and racism are rampant.
Bigotry and racism is NOT a natural part of humanity but a well orchestrated need of capitalism and oligarchical power.
The most destabilizing influence in any country are the uber rich. Just look at the koch brothers and the bush families.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)by crook. And a high percentage of those who make it are socio- or psychopaths, because they will gladly
do unethical things, which the average person would avoid doing. So the chances of psychopaths
succeeding are far greater.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)You differentiate yourself from the person who did you harm, and pick any difference that you can quickly see. Thus if an African American hits you, it is because African Americans are bad NOT that that particular African America was bad. The same for other groups.
This also goes as to people we are doing harm to, slavery involved the beating of potential slaves (and often the killing of their relatives). You justified it because those "Slaves" are different from you. The difference may be race or ethnicity (or even religion) but you use the perceived difference as something real and thus justification for treating such people badly;.
This is innate within all of us and if you really want to fight racism you will accept this unpleasant fact AND make an effort that it does NOT cause you to be a racist. If you ignore this unpleasant fact, racism will creep up in you without you even knowing it.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)You come so close in your argument to hitting the nail on the head but then you back away.
Why are we all fighting? Because the rich are hording all the wealth and are leaving us with very few resources to share among the majority of us. Why are there just a handful of uber rich people and lots of poor people? Because that is how capitalism works. The more money you start with the more money you can make. Capitalism is a game whereby those that have get more and those who have little lose more. It is also how feudalism worked. When we were looking for a new economic system to replace feudalism, that most people had come to realize didn't work fairly, we designed capitalism to replicate some of the same problems feudalism had. We need to evolve out of it.
Capitalism makes us all compete with each other. In order to compete more effectively, we divide ourselves up into groups. The uber rich ensure that those groups are based upon their preferences. The Koch brothers are Nazi racists so they promote racism. Some uber rich are religious so they promote religious bigotry. It really doesn't matter what the division is, as long as there is fighting and as long as there is a downtrodden group that can be abused for cheap labor. It also helps the uber rich that we are fighting these arbitrary divisions instead of fighting the real culprits of our struggle -- the way wealth is distributed in our societies.
If you keep asking why, you will get to the answers.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)We learned a lot when we are young. I hate handling worms to this day, for when I was about 3-4 years of age I went to pick up a stick and it was sleamy, it turned out to be a garden snake, that then bite me. I hate slimy things to this day for that reason.
I had a dog that hated boxes, for the when he was given to my father, that had been the first time that dog had been inside a box. Any animal hates change and while we were good to the dog, he always hated boxes and refused to go in them. He did eventually overcame his hatred but it took a few years.
Another dog, that had been shipped to my family in a create, had no dislike for creates for she had been in and out of them before she was shipped, but she hated getting into cars. I suspect the first time she was in a car was when she was shipped to my family and thus connected cars with bad things. It took months for her to overcome that fear, even as we took her almost every day in cars to do the walks she loved.
A lot of fear, hated and racism is tied in with past harms one had incurred. Like me as to snakes and worms, and my dogs as to boxes and cars, they can be overcome with time but in many ways once learned they remain with you. That is the point I was trying to make, that we often "Learn" things that are wrong based on experience as oppose to reality. It takes a lot of effort to overcome such views that had become innate in us based on experience and out effort to make sense of those experiences.
As to Feudalism. You are accepting the argument of Capitalism that Feudalism was BAD and had to be replaced by today's Capitalism. If you actually look into Feudalism, it was NOT that bad. Yes, Peasants own duties to their Lords, but their Lords owned duties to their Peasants.
Feudalism came out of the need to raise troops and support those troops in an economy with little cash. It started in Western Europe in the Middle Ages and more recent research indicated it started in Greece as a way to raise troops, first to defeat the Persians in the Last Roman-Persian War (c 600) and then the Arabs during the Arab Conquest (c 620). In the Eastern Empire, Units of the Imperial Army were assigned to districts for purposes of raising troops for that unit, but also support for that unit. Egypt was excluded from this change for it had been under Persian Rule then Arab Rule except for dozen years in between the two wars, during the time of the transition.
These is some indications that parts of the switch pre-dates this time period. That troops were paid in land, which only became their son's land after he had served in the Army can be traced to the time of Diocletian (c 280 BC), some units retained the name of Legion but most units stop using the name Legion when Constantine removed the requirement that leaders of Legion be Senators (c 320 AD). Cavalry became the preferred arm of the Roman Army by the time a Maurice (c580 AD). The big change was the decision to merge the Civil Government with the Military unit raised in that same administrative unit. For years this was believed to be under Heraclius, the Emperor who defeated the Persians in the last Roman-Persian War, and who had been Emperor when the Arabs took Persia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt during the first years of the Arab Conquest. It now appears to have started under Maurice, c 580, but fully implemented by Heraclius;s grandson c 650 AD).
The resulting Government and Military Unit was known as the "Theme". The Eastern Empire (What most Historians referred to as the Byzantine Empire, through till its fall to the Turks in 1453, always called itself the "Roman Republic" thus became the first "Feudal" society. Troops and Peasants were viewed as one and the same, thus Commanders took care of their "men" by taking care of the peasants in their Theme. After the Arab Conquest you do NOT have situations like that of the Invasion of Italy by the Goths in 410, where the invading army ended up stronger as it marched up and down Italy as Roman Peasants joined its ranks, for working with barbarians who would look after them, was better then being starved to death by their landlords who they had to pay "rent" to even when they was nothing to pay the rent with.
Yes, the Late Roman Empire was much like today's society, the 1% owning everything, while the 99% have to do all the work. This can best be seen in Egypt. When the Persians took Egypt in the 590s, it was the first time Rome had NOT ruled Egypt since the time of Cleopatra. I read one place that all of the land of Egypt was owned by less then a dozen people by the time of the Persian Conquest. Persia refused to recognize those rights of ownership and gave the land to new owners. Being new owners they did NOT "need" as much as the long time Roman Owners so the peasants ended up with more of their own production then they had had in several hundred years. When Herculitus defeated the Persians, one of the condition was the return of Syria, Palestine and Egypt back to Rome. Those dozen or so Roman Owners reappeared and demanded not only the rent do that year, but all of the rent due to them for the years of Persian Occupation.
Such demands for rent payment, occurred in Vietnam during the Vietnam War, When an Area had been cleared of Viet Cong by US Force, the US Forces were relieved by elements of the Army of the Republic Of Vietnam (ARVN, South Vietnam's Army), ARVN's primary mission to to help the landlords who owned the land the peasant's worked to collect all rent do. This included rent due that year, and all of the rent due during the years of Viet Cong control. This was one of the reasons the War was lost, the Vietnamese peasants had greater rights to the land that they worked under the Viet Cong then under the Government of South Vietnam AND the main problem was NOT the Government of South Vietnam but that that Government would support the "Rights" of the Landlords to their "Rents".
I bring up Vietnam for it shows how Egypt's peasants were being treated during the time period between the Last Roman-Persian War and the Arab Conquest. The Egyptian Peasants started to call their landlords "Tyrants" do to this demand, and the Roman Government supported the Roman Landlords over the Peasants of Egyptians (Who were also Roman Citizens under Roman Law). Egypt would stay Majority Christian til the Crusades, but supported their Moslem Overlords against the Government of Constantinople for the Moslem wanted less money from them then did the private landlords that had the support of the Government of Constantinople.
Similar situations had occurred in Italy starting in the early 500s where the Gothic Rulers of Italy implemented Land reforms. This made the peasants of Italy supportive of the Goths and when Justinian (c 530) went to war to regain Italy for the Roman Empire, such peasants supported their Germanic overlords NOT the Roman Government. When the Goths were finally defeated, the peasants behaved themselves till the Lombard invaded c 580 AD, and then supported the Lombards, who managed to hold onto Italy till the Frank Pepin (father of Charlemagne) conquered them c 750 AD(, Pepin made no efforts to reinstate any former landlord to ownership of their lands, thus the Peasants supported him and his son, Charlemagne.
The Vandals had taken Carthage c 450 AD, and implemented similar land reforms starting about 600. The result was overwhelming support for the government of the Vandals, even through the peasant retain their Roman Citizenship and Catholic Religion, while the Vandals became Arrians. In both the case of Italy and North Africa, Justinian moved against them on the urging of the Roman Elite who were the landlords of those areas and the one losing their source of income as the Goths (and later the Lombards) and Vandals implemented Land Reform.
Justinian ended up bankrupting his government in his effort to restore the Roman Empire AND not accept the land reforms the various barbarian rulers had implemented throughout the Western Empire after 450 AD. Thus by 600 the Eastern Empire had its back against the wall and faced destruction, but it had been forced back into the area where do to its poorest of its people and soil, the Roman Elite had just refused to buy land i.e. the area with the least amount of land controlled by the Roman Elite AND where the peasants had the most control over their own production.
This combination, of needing to raise an Army, no longing having access to huge shortage of wealth from the peasants of Egypt, and the Western Empire force the Late Roman Empire to become the Feudal Byzantine Empire. The Empire needed the support of the peasants and the only way to get that support was to guarantee them their land. That meant cutting support for any claim by the Roman Elite as to not only land outside the Empire, but also inside the Empire.
The Byzantine Empire did this by merging its Military and Civilian Governmental units into one, the theme. That merger also included the obligation to protect the peasants from any invaders, i.e. if someone invaded you theme, the commander of the Theme had to NOT only defeat that invader but try to make the peasants as whole as good be done. Failure to defend the peasants meant lost of command of the Theme. i.e. it became TREASON not to protect the Peasants.
Now, Western Europe did this as to the Barbarian invaders themselves, but always made deals with the old Roman Elites. Except for the Vandals and the Goths, all Germanic Invaders of the period 300-480 were DEFEATED. If Defeated after 400, such invaders were settled in areas of Peasants revolts to help the Roman Elite put down the Peasants. Thus the Barbarians had a Feudal view as to themselves and their soldiers, but not to the Roman Peasants in the 400s, but by the end of the 400s the peasants of the Roman Empire and the Germanic Invaders started to merge and become one. The old Roman Elite complained about this to the Emperor in Constantinople, but there was NOT much the Eastern Empire could do about this merger. This merger lead to movement of land reforms that the Eastern Empire did respond to under Justinian. The long term effect of Justinian's re-conquest was to bankrupt his Empire and turn the remaining peasants within his Empire against him. Thus you see the Lombards, Slavs and Persians all move in on the Empire after Justinian's death for he had NOT addressed the Empire's main weakness, a lack of support for the Empire among the lower classes do to a refusal to address the problem of to much wealth concentrated in the Roman Elite.
Now, Charlemagne managed to get an Empire together, but under Frankish rules that require the division of any property among the sons of the deceased. This formation barely survived him (Charlemagne also lead an Army that was paid by loot, thus his empire started to collapse as soon as he had no one else to conquer and loot. with no one to loot, his army could not be paid and dissolved). Around 1000 AD, the Saxons under Otto I decided to revive Charlemagne;s empire but this time by adopting Feudalism as it had evolved in Greece since Heraculis time. Otto decided to call his "Themeic" (a name he did not use, instead used the term "Kingdom" or "Dukedome" and named the rulers of these units Kings, if outside his Imperial Borders, or Dukes, if within his Imperial Borders (THus Hungary, Poland and France had "Kings" but Austria, Brandenburg etc were "Dukes" . All were viewed as part of the "Western Empire" but the Kingdom of Germany and Italy were viewed as being the Kingdoms of the Emperor.
Further down you had Counts (or barons. baron being the Germanic Name for the Latin derived "Count" . Each County was ruled by a Count (This is where we get the term County from). Below the County you had knights shares and other Feudal rights, at the bottom you had the peasants.
When Otto I implemented full Feudalism to his Empire, the Empire was being attacked by three groups. First the Arabs from North African, The Arab Conquest had finished around 750 and had been an Empire built on loot to pay the army and like all such army went into decline when the Empire had to place else to expand. Thus by 900 North Africa had broken from the Caliph in Baghdad and were raiding most of Southern Europe. Also by 900 the Hungarians had moved into what is now call the Hungarian plain. The Hungarians are the last horse migrants from the Steppes into Europe and were viewed as the best horsemen of the time period. The Hungarians raided throughout Europe from that center, their raided as far west as France. And lets not forget the Vikings, whose raids started about 800 and continued till the 900s.
Otto I solved the problem caused by all three of these invaders by embracing Feudalism. Prior to Otto I it was common for the landlords of areas of the Western Empire to leave when an area was raided and then come back and demand their rent. After Otto I embrace of Feudalism, the Dukes, Counts and Knights would be guilty of treason for NOT protecting the peasants and would lose their rights to the land. This was later embraced by France, Spain, and England as a response not the Viking, Hungarian and Moslem raids. By 1000 AD the embrace of Feudalism had made Western Europe so strong that given the Middle Age Warm Period Western Europe could support troops going to the Mid East for the First time since late Roman Imperial days.
Yes, Feudalism was successful, but like a lot of successful things, its success lead to its downfall. As societies aged the elites demanded that various duties imposed on them by the terms of Feudalism be lifted so they can have more freedom. In many ways this lifeing of duties was opposed by the Church AND the Peasants (The Church acting as a way the peasants could express their objections to the change). By the 1600s the Middle Class had emerged, these were "peasants" as that term was understood in the 1300-1600, but had something called money. They were willing to give up their Feudal duties for they saw them as restrictions on what they can do (this included the right to fire someone who was your employee for any or no reason, something FORBIDDEN under Feudalism).
What the rising middle class wanted was freedom from the obligation feudal rules imposed on them (and by Middle Class I mean that part of the population excluding the top 1%, who are the ruling elite, and the next 2 % who tend to be hanger on, the counts, knights ect of the feudal system but the next 10% of the population in terms of Wealth, the 87% of the population stayed peasants).
Thus the old rules that protected the bottom 90% of the population were found to be a "burden" by the raising Middle Class and they were the main advocate for ending Feudalism. They then picked up all of the "problems" of Feudalism as justification for ending Feudalism. This was opposed by many peasants, thus to took centuries to end all of the feudal requirements in the law. For example, it was only in the mid 1800s that employment became "At Will" instead of one year in duration and all Leases were no longer presumed to be one year in duration but the modern "Month to Month" concept.
Many elite refused to perform their obligations but still demanded their rights of the peasant below them. This was always a problem under Feudalism, especially when the King and others on the top refused to enforce those obligations (this was one of the reason for the French Revolution and the reign of terror, the Reign of Terror hit those areas of France where the elites had stopped doing their feudal duties, but did NOT occur where these duties were still being done). The French King had permitted his nobles to get out of their Feudal Duties in exchange for support of the Government, thus the Feudal requirement that the King protect the Peasants from the Nobles disappeared and lead to the French Revolution where such rights were changed to direct ownership of property rights).
Feudalism had a logic that worked during rough time periods, but once Feudalism had solved the problem society was facing, the elite wanted to get out of the obligations Feudalism imposed on them. The reason was simple, the ruling elite wanted to go back to how the Ancient Romans viewed themselves, the elite entitled to their income based on the fact of who and they own no obligations to anyone based on who they are. Feudalism rejected both of those concept. Under Feudalism you were entitled to certains "Rights" but those "Rights" in turned required you to do certain "obligations". Under Feudalism there were no Rights NOT tied in with some obligation.
As I said since the Middle Ages the Ruling Elite have adopted a policy of changing Feudal rights to ownership rights. i.e Rights with Obligations to one of just Rights. i.e .Right of Ownership subject to duties to the peasants, to one of just right of ownership and the peasants are on their own. Thus Feudalism was a working system and could even work today, if we were willing to enforce the elite to do what they should be doing. In the 800-1200 period, the kings had the power and the will to remove any Noble who refused to protect their peasants. after about 1200 the King became one with the Nobles and wanted to max from the peasants without giving the peasants anything.
Under the change from Feudalism to Capitalism Peasants revolts were common, you see them in the 1200 till the 1800s. In many ways such failed peasants revolts were a check on the the ruling elite, it forced the "King" to least address the problems of the peasants. Thus such peasants revolts ended up slowing down the switch to Capitalism, but the middle Class and the Ruling 1% saw more and more money in Capitalism so their freed themselves of their obligations under Feudalism and then made the claim such "Freedom" also benefited the peasants, for now instead of working for their feudal lord, they had the "Freedom" to starve to death while their former Lord, hired others at lesser pay to do the work the peasants used to have to do (and get feed for his effort).
In many ways the destruction of Feudalism was tied in with a decision to break up the peasants as a single group. Under Feudalism what the peasants needed had to be addressed even at the highest part of society, under capitalism, unless the peasants go into revolt, the higher parts of society ignores them.
Just some comment that I wish we had a Feudal Society, at least everyone would know who is suppose to take care of them if things go bad.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)n/t
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)The children were of various ages from 7 - 18, various ethnicities, various income groups, and of both genders. The ides was to just let them go and see what happened.
Of all these factors, they observed that the children broke off into groups according to age.
Race and ethnicity played no role at all.
So, yes. Racism is a learned behavior.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)There is a lot of emergent behavior in adults that is not present in children.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Children are not little adults.
Ethnic assimilation and mixing happens. My marriage is an example of that. But in order for that to work there needs to be an over-arching culture that everyone buys into. Muslims in the US are well integrated, since our culture welcomes outsiders easily as long as they buy into the idea of American-ness. In the UK, not so much since there is little social pressure to integrate.
Another example of a mixing culture is Mexico.
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)There's nothing natural about them.
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)Exploring ones racial identity is very natural. This may include surrounding oneself with those of the same race..
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)In late 19th century and early 20th century America, people of Irish and Italian descent were considered "black" and were often discriminated against. Seems pretty ridiculous now, but it wasn't then. We obviously (for the most part) grew out of that particular defect.
From a standpoint of DNA, race is pretty inconsequential. I realize that there are cultural differences between groups that can cause friction, but this friction isn't guaranteed. It's interesting that in Europe, visiting Americans of different races are often identified primarily as Americans rather than by their race. In other words, cultural identity trumps racial identity.
Here at home, people in power often use that friction to retain their power. In the Reconstruction South, whites in position of power, angered by a burgeoning black middle class, fostered resentment between poor whites and middle-class blacks. The poor whites in effect unwittingly did the bidding of the white power elite, successfully halting the upward mobility of bourgeois blacks and thus retaining their stranglehold on positions of power.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)Eskimo-like people, who now live mainly in the far north of Norway,
beyond the Arctic Circle. I think they have been pushed up there
by the Germanic tribes that invaded the area some 2,000 years ago.
The natives keep mostly to themselves. They do come across some
prejudice if they went south "into town" -- so to speak.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)Goes to my many times repeating the words 'others' and 'otherism'.
Hell - it's the American Way.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)After this, therefore because of this...?
pampango
(24,692 posts)the ethnic makeup in Norway has been changing for some time.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Norway
There is still much social cohesion. Only the far-right Norwegian People's Party is anti-immigrant. Most of Norway do not see immigration as damaging social cohesion.
Yavin4
(35,357 posts)It's not uni-ethnic.
Number23
(24,544 posts)the EXACT same line that you just spewed.
Sometimes, I still find myself astounded by some of the stuff I see posted here. Which is amazing to me considering some of the stuff that gets regularly posted here.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and yet they have the second highest incarceration rate right behind America.
Nice try, but fail.
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)...because our prisons, like our society, teaches us to be obedient, worker drones.
.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)That's a Lifer, as Institutionalized as the most hardened Inmate.
Yavin4
(35,357 posts)Americans have little or no idea at how primitive our life is. None. We've been fed massive propaganda that we are the best at this and that, but it's all a joke.
Our prison system is a monument to our educational and mental health failures. We jail our problems instead of working to solve them.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)The corporations that rule us profit from our problems.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Winner winner, chicken dinner. That is the basis of a significant part of the US economy and that it is is not an accident. Not in the least.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)It results in a meaner, uglier and generally more selfish society.
Instead of "all for one and one for all," it's "every man for himself."
Victimization is almost inevitable.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)(See Scalia, et al, and many others)
They value reason, science, and logic there. How refreshing.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)In Norway, the prisons are not private and so there is no incentive for them in saving every penny at the expense of the inmates.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Our prisons are about punishment, not helping an individual.
Most people in the US (and on DU) would be outraged if a domestic abuser or murderer or child molester were living in conditions like that prison.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)In the us it's about suffering.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)criminal or a better citizen?
America is as backwards on prison policy as the 19th century Salem witch hunters were on mental disorders.
Of course Norway does not have a citizenry armed to the teeth and a media keeping everyone perpetually frightened. It is all about mindset, and the militarized, weaponized, terrorized America has a sick one.
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)Fred Sanders
It is far better to reform criminals - who could end up as productive citizens after their incarnation - and who might repent what they have been doing in the past - and try to stay away from crime after they are given their freedom back... And most people I suspect do that - try to make a better future than the past... most people who end up in prison even got education inside the prison - who make them more able to enter the free world...
Norway do not have any 2 amendment - weapon is a privilege nor a right - and even though many have weapons in their homes - as part of a deep rooted tradition of hunting - It is very seldom people have been known to use weapons to kill others - and most people I know - do not have any weapon at all - And even the ones I know have weapons - very seldom show it off - it is closed of in secure boxes - when not used... We just do not have the same gun-ho culture the US have - when it come to the use - and buying of firearms at all... In fact - weapons is strict regulated - and many types of weapons - who are legal in the US - can not legally be sold in Norway - even if you can get your hands on them - on the black market (yeah we do have a black market for this things too) But if you get arrested with illegal weapons - you can get a rather strict legal action against you - a great fine - and also prison time.. And the fine can be expensive to pay off...
Diclotican
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)From prisons, to schools to health care to social safety nets....a beacon of progressive ideas all meshed and working together.
I salute you, you do not get near enough recognition from the world, certainly not the capitalist dominated media of the Western world.
pampango
(24,692 posts)they are a "model nation".
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)Fred Sanders
If the conservatives are not messing to much with it - it might be a role model for many in the world... But the latest state budget are not exactly comforting if you are poor - disabled or sick - but I do believe it would have some problems getting it rammed true as they belived....
But I do believe - many who voted for the conservatives last year - Will regret they voted them in....
Diclotican
Turbineguy
(37,212 posts)How well are American ex-prisoners integrating into society?
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Because we focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation. Rehabilitation would involve lots of "touchy-feely" stuff that law and order politicians cannot abide. They might be considered "soft on crime" if they advocated for substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, education, job training and the like.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)One of the problems is the control gangs have over our prisons. People are ordered to attack other people by the gangs for various reasons, slights, control of the contraband trade, outside vendettas, etc.
liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)Norway has approximately 30 guns per 100 residents while the US has nearly 90.
Crime Rates:
Crime levels: Norway 29.93 Ranked 69th. US 55.84 Ranked 30th. 87% more than Norway
Violent crime > Gun crime > Guns per 100 residents 31.3 Ranked 11th. US 88.8 Ranked 1st. 3 times more than Norway
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Norway/United-States/Crime
If you don't have violent crimes, you don't need to worry so much about violence in prison. You can focus on rehabilitation.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Norway.......72
The US......707
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
The larger percentage of violent crimes is not the main reason for our much higher incarceration rate.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Attica is built in an area that is very similar -- apple orchards, horse trails, woods, mountains.
On the other hand Attica looks like Castle Grayskull from the outside, while Norway's looks like IKEA.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)when events make us feel fear, we demand security. When we feel outrage, we demand justice. When we feel wronged, we demand retribution.
The system isn't designed to prevent or discourage crime, it's designed to make the public feel vindicated and superior. The fact that it creates criminals is of interest only to academics.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)It grows out of the reactionary protestant denominations that disdained learning as Popery, and argued that direct experience was superior to education. That the "direct experience" was self-delusion, blatant mental illness or outright fraud in order to fleece the gullible mattered not. That became a cultural norm and has spread out into the mass populace in the US over the march of time.
One must remember that some of the original English settlers of what became the US left England for the more tolerant Netherlands. They proved so obnoxious, overbearing and dogmatic that even the quite open-minded Dutch quickly had enough and booted them out of the Low Countries in no uncertain terms. There was no place left for them to go except the colonies, where they quickly found natives to oppress.
One small thing I can give the Catholic church is that it did at some level value learning. Not the reactionary protestants. Add predestination and the other know-nothing doctrines of reactionary Calvinist protestantism and you are bound to get American history of xenphobia and bigotry and a dog's breakfast of a social milieu like the US is the result.
In hindsight, the state religions of Europe served a useful purpose - they taught the populace to distrust churches, the first step towards rationality. As there was only one state religion in most European states through the 19th century people's disaffection with the state churches largely morphed into a disaffection with all churches.
I have often thought that although Australia got the prisoners and we got the religious dissidents that the Aussies got much the better of the deal, colonization wise.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)hundreds of criminals. The final Papal Executioner Giovanni Battista Bugatti personally chopped off 516 heads. This strongly indicates that the Catholic way of justice was not really lacking in blood lust, public power displays and basic politics. The Pope himself ordered heads cut from petty criminals, regularly, publicly and they did so until forced to stop by the Italian Republic.
So from the start of America until our Civil War era, the Vatican was executing hundreds of people. If that shows that they 'valued learning' I am not exactly clear on how.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The First actual Prison in the World was "Eastern State"
http://www.easternstate.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_State_Penitentiary
It was intended as a replacement for executing criminals.
As the 1800s went on, execution became less and less the preferred punishment but after 1869 Civil Jurisdiction over Criminal Matters became the job of the Italian State NOT the Vatican.
As to Giovanni Battista Bugatti, he was the executioner from 1796 to 1869, 73 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Bugatti
List of Papal Executions, please note between 1798 and 1815 all execution had to be approved by the French, the same executioner was retained but between 1798 and 1815 he worked for the French not the Vatican. In 1815 that changed back to the Vatican. Thus many of Giovanni Battista Bugatti executions were under FRENCH RULE NOT Vatican Rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_the_Papal_States
Executions Today:
http://www.executedtoday.com/2014/10/21/
Just a comment of NOT putting today's standards on people who lived in the past, the standards were different then and remember the old saying by Gibbon "His faults were the faults of his time, his virtues were his own". That is a good way to look at any person who lived in the past, look at the good in him or her, not the evil of his or her time period.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)Protestants were in favor of learning, indeed the original laws of Massachusetts required every community to have a schoolhouse. Independent study of the Bible (and other texts) was encouraged for "all" levels of society by the Protestants, whereas the Catholics favored limiting education to the upper classes and especially brilliant (and obedient) members of the lower orders. The "direct experience" of which you speak was a characteristics of "Ranters and Quakers" and other disorderly sects that were as despised for their ideas by the Protestants as they were by the Catholics. Protestants differed from Catholics not in valuing a "personal relationship" with the god-thing, but rather in terms of whether works or faith were most important (among other, more obscure, points of theology). Of course, the Puritans who settled Massachusetts were hard-line Calvinists, and damned intolerant ones to boot, which is what set them in conflict with their more tolerant cousins in Holland.
The know-nothing Protestants you see today derive their lineage mostly from other sects, who do indeed value "personal experience" and "calling" far more than learning, and distrust the latter.
However, the Society of Friends, which started out as a radical and levelling movement, also valued learning greatly (and turned out a large number of physicians, as law was not a profession available to them), which separates them a bit from the other sects who value "direct experience" over mediated experience.
In fact, a casual perusal of Reformation history will show that the Protestant sects all favored literacy, education, and practical experience in this world, as opposed to the monastic emphasis and celibacy of secular clergy preferred by the Catholics. And though the latter did much to preserve learning during earlier years, they put a lot of effort into suppressing new thought once the Renaissance rolled around and people started resurrecting Classical literature and even trying to prove things a posteriori, rather than a priori.
-- Mal
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Prisoner Oscar Wilde
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)with making profit and refusing to believe prisoners are still human beings, all of whom will walk among us again very soon.
The average prison stay is less than 6 months.....rehabilitation is vital....
Folks fail to understand punishment is OVER once the judge passes the sentence, loss of liberty is the punishment, there can be no other or more punishment meted out by the prison system. NONE.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)How many DUers would be fine with violent or sexual offenders living in those kinds of conditions?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Prison sentences aren't supposed to include torture (physical or psychological). See the 8th Amendment.
*Edit: Okay, maybe the suites with kitchens etc. are a bit much. But I'd still prefer that, for most offenders, over what we have in this country.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)nt
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)in the first place. But they don't realize that their knee-jerk "tough on crime" stance helps perpetuate a violent society.
2naSalit
(86,061 posts)I think TPTB actually do realize this and since it makes big bucks for someone who will offer monetary kick back makes it A-ok because it keeps the steamroller rolling. It's why capitalism isn't the best practice for society and a diverse one in particular.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If it results in lower recidivism, reduced crime rates and lower costs, I'm for it.
Is the point of criminal justice to protect the public or to punish people? Personally, I think that the latter is used (ineffectively) to obtain the former.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Nordicblue
(1 post)The full episode can be watched here: http://arenan.yle.fi/tv/2428667
The first minute or so is in swedish and then there is some FIN/NOR in it but mostly it is in english.
madville
(7,397 posts)That's looks like an awesome place to retire, I've seen senior facilities way worse than that here in the USA.
scarystuffyo
(733 posts)prisons are divided by race and gangs here, Blacks , Mexicans , South Americans , Whites , Asians
That kind of prison would never work here.
I bet just about every person in that place is White
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)scarystuffyo
How mutch are you willing to bet on that ? But you are right about - we do not have mutch of a gang problem in our prison systems as in the US - who it is dangrous to talk to the wrong crowd - you either get killed by them - or your "Own" if you cross the line...
Diclotican
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)So he wasn't there in '71. But I bet he sure-enough heard all about it.
-- Mal
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Hello?
valerief
(53,235 posts)- Norways Incarceration Rate Is A Fraction Of That Of The United States: 71 out of every 100,000 Norwegian citizens is incarcerated. In the United States, 743 out of every 100,000 citizens was incarcerated in 2009. The U.S. has the worlds highest incarceration rate.
- Norways Prisoner Recidivism Rate Is Much Lower Than The United States: The recidivism rate for prisoners in Norway is around 20 percent. Meanwhile, its estimated that 67 percent of Americas prisoners are re-arrested and 52 percent are re-incarcerated.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/25/277771/norway-is-safe/
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)"punish, punish, punish" rather than one of actually trying to reform the person and provide them with the education they need for when they are released plus the forced minimum sentencing that the legislature have forced on judges has hurt as well.
valerief
(53,235 posts)cheap prison labor. Police forces get federal money based on their War on Drugs drug arrests, so there's that. The PTB, for whom the GOP works, benefits by taking potential Dem votes and protesters out of commission.
But the punish thing is true, too. The U.S. religiosity mindset has that reward-punish thing on overdrive.
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)xchrom
I think this warden was rather shocked by his experience at Halden prison complex - who is a universe apart to what he know in the US - From what I saw - I think he kind of was in a state of shock the whole visit - not just the fact that the prison itself was made into the surining as best as possible - but also that the whole idea about prison was to make the situation as normal as possible - and that the prisons in fact was given ample time to educate them self - and even had a full blown music studio on the premises - that really shocked him... The fact that the autorities cared for the prisoners was a new for him.... (and that I found to be most scary - that he could not care less for the ones he had as inmates )
Diclotican
midnight
(26,624 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Savages.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)You think prisons had pillow-top mattresses and tea time back in the good old days? Sing Sing, Alcatraz, San Quentin. Or maybe you're pining for the days of the chain gang, when America really had some compassion. You're always pining for the 1930s, when FDR made America a paradise and everyone was happy. That America never existed, bub ... and trying to fix things today by appealing to some nonexistent historical past is not just futile, it's kind of dangerous. Facts matter.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)Best closing line evah!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)We are a young country being destroyed by the same forces on our soil that always supported the Might Makes Right way of doing things.
Norway appears to be more honest and logical, because they are not afraid of losing their home land and place in the world.
JMHO.
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)freshwest
At least - we can make jokes about our forefathers - who made Europe as unpleasant as they could do it - in the 7th to the 10th century - and we have maybe accepted our past - in a more grown up way than US do -as it still is a young nation - who still have to settle down - and grow up...
Who want Norway? - 5 million people who are as stubborn as ours, would be a nightmare for everyone - just ask the danes - or the Swedes - or for that matter the germans who for every ting in its world - never understood the finer print of how Norwegians act sometimes....
The fact is that we do not have to many enemies around the world - we have been at peace with Sweden and Denmark for over 2 centuries now - and the border between Sweden and Norway - have been more or less the same since the 16th century - and even our nabour to the east - Russia have not been in a war directly with Norway - anytime in known history - more than 1000 year of friendship with Russia in other words... Even under the cold war - we was able to make a professional connection between our two nations - cold as ice - but still - better than a shooting match....
Diclotican
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)one of the reason the country has never come to grips with the history or the realities that resulted from that history.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)He could have learned that reading the Green Mile
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Bettie
(15,998 posts)Rehabilitation and reintegration into society versus punishment.
Even after prison, people who have been incarcerated continue to be punished by our society.