Rex Dupain's confiscated Hassy

[daniel_r]

Another one of those cases where a Photographer has his camera confiscated and questioned on a beach... yeah, the articles keep coming.

But this is most likely the pinnacle of all beach-camera stories - Rex Dupain's Hasselblad was Confiscated and Dupain questioned.

They thought the Hasselblad was some sort of trick camera because they couldn't find a display screen," he said. "They wouldn't believe it wasn't a digital camera."

The remarkable thing I find about the story is that the Dupain family have probably crafted the internationally recognisable and quintessentially Australian "bronzed beach Aussie" and lifesaver images we all conjure up when thinking of Sydney's beaches.

Sad really.

I can just see the question being asked: "So Mr Dupain, where can we see one of these claimed 'artworks' exactly?"

[adam]

My goodness! Crazy!

[blacknstormy]

I truely think this is one of the saddest stories I've read in a long time !!!!
What the hell is going on??????
Cue Hitler next ???????

[radar]

Just finished reading the article in the Australian, appalling

They couldn't believe that he may be using film!!

And then you have Waverley council wanting to charge him $160/hr when he asked if he could get a permit so he wouldn't get harrassed.

A very sad state of affairs.

André

[sirhc55]

I’m sorry for the expletive but what is this country fucking coming to

[ozczecho]

Sad. But I imagine that this type of harassment goes on everyday unpublished if you are Joe Public. What has happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"...at the moment walking around with a camera on a beach means you must be a pervert.

I want my civil rights back.

[gstark]

This story saddens me greatly.

We are becoming at risk of losing something very precious.

[Onyx]

I can think of other places that charge $160 an hour, with a guarantee of seeing skin (and not only that)...

Do these law enforcers feel a sense of accomplishment when they violate the civil rights of the innocent? Are they even aware what they're doing is illegal and rightfully should be looked at (and punished) as harassment.

[moz]

I'm curious about what they mean by "confiscated". With the plod that can mean anything from "let me look at that" to "you might be able to buy that back at a police auction". I'm assuming the former but I do wonder. The article also fails to mention what action was taken against Mr Dupain. Did they demand he leave the beach, stop taking photos there or just question him and move along? Again, I suspect the latter is the case.

[fozzie]

What is this country coming to.

Next time I go to the beach, I will certainly remember to leave the 'Box Brownie' home for fear of having it confiscated, and me also being removed by the Police to the Station for questioning.

Footnote for BBJ: no longer can you take your D2x to Glenelg beach to take shots of the girls wearing bikinis or 1/2 bikinis


fozzie

[marcotrov]

If it wasn't so serious a situation, Police state and all, you'd have to laugh. It's bloody getting rediculous and we seem powerless to do anything about it.
cheers
marco

[Reschsmooth]

There is an option - why don't the members of DSLRUsers.com and various councils (and the pigs) arrange a 'summit' to discuss how illegal their actions are?

We can talk about how sad this state of affairs is/are, but we need to take a proactive stance on this, don't we? (I say this as someone who has never been approached by anyone trying to infringe on my rights to take photos).

P

[sirhc55]

Seeing as how this may be the largest photo forum in Australia - why not lobby the government - whoops! Sorry, I forgot that this is not One Country but a series of feudal states - bugger

[Antsl]

I had a similar problem in North Queensland back in June... I was in some small town and made an impulsive decision to shoot some doco at a country fair at night. I saw two cops waiting next to the ring and I knew immediately they were there to say gidday to me and so I went up to them and ID'd myself. Some egg on the committee did not like me taking images without there permission. No problems with a chat to the police but the chairman of the committee wanted me to make a time to see him the next day if I wanted to make any more images and in the end I decided to forget it and get on with the job I was in town to do.

If Dupain had used his nouse he would have approached a senior member of the local police and discussed in advance the project he was working on prior to the project so that an incident like this did not happen. From experience has often proved that if you keep them out of the loop they want to know everything, put them in the loop and they don't give a damn!

[Nnnnsic]

Nuts. Absolutely fucked up.

Was it legal at all what the police did?

[Killakoala]

Disgraceful.

[moz]

If Dupain had used his nouse he would have approached a senior member of the local police and discussed in advance the project he was working on prior

IME that's a waste of time anywhere with mroe than one police officer - inevitably you'll talk to the wrong one. Plus of course that doesn't work at all at places like Bondi where the police will tell you to, ah, "go away" if you try to talk to them like that.

It would make an amusing denial of service attack to get a bunch of people to visit both the council and the police at Bondi and ask for permission to take a few snaps just for private use. After the first 30 or 40 they're probably get the idea.

[moz]

Was it legal at all what the police did?

Possiblyprobablymaybe.

I think it's a safe assumption that they were acting lawfully, because Australian law is rubbish when it comes to this sort of thing[1]. Broadly, you have few rights and many ways that those rights can be (temporarily[2]) superseded. The cops can stop you and "have a chat" for any reason, and can instruct you to move along if you're stationary or stop if you're moving. They can do this for any reason, although typically it's because you're not white or under 30 or look poor. Technically if they stop a large enough group and only question the black members you could sue them for discrimination. Maybe you should... they do like a laugh, our police officers.

Just be grateful you're not Cornelia Rau or David Hicks, both Australian citizens and both recipients of the full benefits of our govenrment's proactive approach to crime prevention.

[1] Australian law was originally written so decent white folk didn't have to take any lip from commoners (ie, transported criminals and fauna[3]). This is changing very, very slowly. Police powers are usually evaluated by saying "will this work on The Block or Palm Island", not "will this work on rich white lawyers from Mosman". So their powers are very, very broad but they don't point them at latte-sipping liberals very often.
[2] "temporarily" may exceed your lifetime. For instance, ASIO can hold you for two weeks without charge, then they must release you. However they release you wherever they like, and may re-hold you immediately, they don't have to give you a chance to escape. Similarly, David Hicks may be tried before he dies, but at this stage that seems unlikely.
[3] ie, aborigines. Who officially stopped being native animals and became human beings in 1968. Australians all let us rejoice!

(no, I'm not a lawyer, I'm what the media like to call a "professional protester". One day I'd like to be paid for it).

[Antsl]

If, like Dupain, you have a valid purpose for making photographs in a public place then take the opportunities and steps that are required to get the job done. If you're simply interested in photographing people on the beach for the hell of it then I reckon people have a right to question your intent, particularly if you are not being up front with the people you are photographing.

You might be clear in your intent but nowadays you do need to convey that intent to those about you if you wish to make images in a public place.

[Mr Darcy]

http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml
This is from the Links Sticky, but is particularly relevant here.
From a conversation I had with a security guard, detaining someone compulsorily against their will is tantamount to arrest, whether it is explicitly stated or not. It would appear that Rex would be within in his rights to sue for wrongful arrest.

Greg

[Raskill]

Jesus H Christ. Heres something thats orignal a "your rights be trodden on" story by the print media, and the predictable response by many of you thinking you now live in a Police state and your rights mean nothing.

Grow up.

Would you rather the Police did nothing when they got complaints about people taking photos on a beach? Someone would have complained to the Police about this guy taking photos.

And imagine the Police not knowing what a hassleblad camera was. Just shows they are Nazis! And they didn't know that Dupains father was somewhat the artist. Definetly makes them facists.

Is it legal for the Police to stop someone and talk to them? No. Why would it be. Is it illegal for any member of the public to stop and talk to someone? Of course not. Or maybe we could make it illegal, then you could all complain about losing that right also.


The cops can stop you and "have a chat" for any reason, and can instruct you to move along if you're stationary or stop if you're moving.

No. Wrong. If you think this, read the Summary Offences Act. Would you rather Police couldn't move along groups of people acting in a manner likely to be found offensive by a person of reasonable firmness?

They can do this for any reason, although typically it's because you're not white or under 30 or look poor.

What utter shit. It's the old 'police only pick on minorities'. Of course, you can also use the 'police only pick on the white kids' argument if you live in Cronulla. Or any argument you like. I know, next time the Police stop you for RBT, use the "you only stopped me cause I'm white/black/red/green/yellow argument" I'm sure it will help you a lot.

Technically if they stop a large enough group and only question the black members you could sue them for discrimination. Maybe you should... they do like a laugh, our police officers.

Yeah. Great advice. Lets clutter up the legal system more with bullshit complaints and civil litigation. Makes less time to try criminals.

Just be grateful you're not Cornelia Rau or David Hicks, both Australian citizens and both recipients of the full benefits of our govenrment's proactive approach to crime prevention.

Yes. The federal government has a huge impact on the day to day duties of State Police in NSW. Police get a daily briefing on which minority to subjugate each day directly from the Prime Minister Office.

Australian law was originally written so decent white folk didn't have to take any lip from commoners. Australian law is based on several nations legal systems, but mainly the UK. Is it Perfect? No. Maybe you could go through the Crimes Act, No. 40 and give us examples of legislation that states "lets get them blacks/asians/wogs/dagos/indians etc etc. If you can think of a better system, go into Politics, quit bitching from the sideline.

So their powers are very, very broad but they don't point them at latte-sipping liberals very often. I can assure you that Police will gleefully arrest anyone. Maybe thats a problem though. Maybe being arrested should be m,ade illegal to protect everyones rights.

Aborigines. Who officially stopped being native animals and became human beings in 1968. Australians all let us rejoice!

This is great. Somehow Dupain being asked what he was up to shows how unfair the legal is/was to Kooris prior to 1968.

no, I'm not a lawyer, I'm what the media like to call a "professional protester". One day I'd like to be paid for it.

Yes, everyone loves professional protestors, or renta-a-crowd. Aren't they the ones who seem to hijack meaningful and legal protests and stuff them up? Usually somewhere in the crowd near the 'sociallist students alliance'.

People, this is a article written by a JOURNALIST. Any other time we read the paper and think "I don't believe most of what I read", but it relates to a photog so lets get our knickers in a knot.

Did the Police talk to him? Yes. Did they know how to work his camera or the specifics? No. Did they arrest him? No. Did they charge him at a later date? No. Did the confiscate his camera? No. Did they act illegally? No.

Is the press jumping on the 'Police State' band wagon? Yes....

[beetleboy]

Interesting response Raskill.

My only thought is that if Dupain felt compelled to seek a "permit" from Waverley Council that he may have been "encouraged" to do so by the police..hence showing their lack of legal knowledge - something I would assume they should have fairly well memorised!

[ozczecho]

Would you rather the Police did nothing when they got complaints about people taking photos on a beach?

I would rather have Police deployed where they are needed. Its not like we have so many of them that we can spare a few questioning photogs about their hobby/profession.

Is it a beat up? Maybe...but the fact remains a dude was questioned by police over taking photos in a public place, which at the moment is still legal...

[Nnnnsic]

Beach mini-meet anyone?

[Raskill]

I would rather have Police deployed where they are needed.

So would I. Unfortunately, beaches are trouble spots, assaults and thefts and steal from motor vehicles are all common at beaches. Also, lets not forget the trouble at Cronulla and the fact the state government wants beaches to appear safe, andso, they are over patrolled by Police.

Is it a beat up? Maybe...but the fact remains a dude was questioned by police over taking photos in a public place, which at the moment is still legal...

Again, if someone complains, Police are compelled to at least ask some questions. Imagine if they did nothing and it was John Lewthaite taking the photos....

[trotkiller]

Nuts. Absolutely fucked up.

Was it legal at all what the police did?

Probably not but all they would have to do is quote the anti terrorism laws and they can do what ever they want to do

[Matt. K]

Antsl
I don't need a valid reason for taking pictures at the beach! If I feel like taking pictures at the beach then I will bloody well do so, whether you like it or not! I have a right to record my time here on Earth and if you happen to be sunbaking on our beach when I decide to photograph it then then that is your problem. Deal with it.

[Raskill]

Probably not but all they would have to do is quote the anti terrorism laws and they can do what ever they want to do

What anti-terror laws?

The legislation that your referring to has extremely limited applications and most Police don't even need to know about it. It refers to persons, places and vehicles being 'targets' pf searches due to a HIGH level threat.

These laws require the Commissioner of Police to permit them to be used. An example would be an IMMIMENT attack on the Sydney CBD or any other target area. By enacting these laws, Police may then be compelled to search all premises, vehicles and persons in the target area.

They have never been enacted.

Police aren't trying to be bastards, their trying to stop people photographing kiddies.

[Matt. K]

Raskill
You are absolutely right! 99.9% of cops do a brilliant job and they have every right to be curious when they see anything unusual. They wouldn’t be doing their job if they didn't. Our beaches are full of folk and tourists taking pictures and all strength to them. What gets up my nose are people who think beaches are private places and photographers should get permission before snapping away. The law says that this is not the case. I have no problem with anyone approaching me on a beach and asking questions....providing they don't insinuate I am some kind of pervert. Photographers have as much right to enjoy their photography on the beach as sunbakers and swimmers have to enjoy their pastimes. The beaches belong to all of us! We all have responsibilities in what we do and those caught using imagery in an inappropriate way should be severely punished...banned from carrying cameras for life.....and forced into long-term counselling. Electronic tagging would also be useful for repeat offenders. The rest of us should not be tainted because of the actions of a very small minority of ‘sickos’ …end of rant!

[Antsl]

Antsl
I don't need a valid reason for taking pictures at the beach! If I feel like taking pictures at the beach then I will bloody well do so, whether you like it or not! I have a right to record my time here on Earth and if you happen to be sunbaking on our beach when I decide to photograph it then then that is your problem. Deal with it.

Hi Matt,

I'm not questioning your right to make photographs on the beach "of the beach", however if I am on the beach and I notice you photographing my niece with a long lens without any particular consent or reason then I am going to get interested in what you are doing and probably ask you why you are making those images. Does that not sound unreasonable to you? If you have kids and i started photographing them on the beach for the hell of it then I think you would want to know who I am and why I am doing it.

The concern about people taking photos on the beach stems from a small minority of people with cameras (no, I doubt they quallfy as photographers) who take photos for deviant reasons. Its for this reason most of us can no longer just rock up with a camera to a school sporting event or a local pool without getting questioned about our intent.

If you are on the beach and you really want to include kids or people in the photo then spare half a minute to let them know what you're doing; the mere fact that you ask is often enough for people to assume you are ok and let you get on with what you want to do. At the risk of sounding like a wanker it is something I have been doing for the past 20 years and I have never had many problems and I usuallly achieve the results I am looking for.

Owning a camera is not a right for you to ignore other peoples rights.

[Aussie Dave]

I too agree that taking photos in a public place, the photographer has just as much right to take his or her photos as the other people in that place have to be doing whatever it is they're doing....as long as everything is kept legal.

Defining what everyone is doing and whether it's legal or not is where the questions come into play. I personally don't see a problem, nor would mind, if the police came up and asked what I was doing and what photos I was taking (if it appeared that there was a chance I could be breaking the law). That's their job, to protect the community. Without asking a few questions, how do they know what is going on...unless, as suggested, you take the initiative and let them know prior.

I also agree that this was written by a journalist who seems to be (IMO) sensationalising what happened. It may have some elements of truth and the public probably read these types of things and think this is how the world views photographers. Perhaps instead of blaming the police, one should be looking at the people writing these articles that inflate the truth and cause the chaos & confusion in the first place.

Freedom of the press @ the sacrifice of our freedom...

[moz]

Would you rather the Police did nothing when they got complaints about people taking photos on a beach? Someone would have complained to the Police about this guy taking photos.

Almost always, yes. But I disagree that someone would have needed to complain - the plod seem quite willing to use their initiative.

The cops can stop you and "have a chat" for any reason, and can instruct you to move along if you're stationary or stop if you're moving.

No. Wrong. If you think this, read the Summary Offences Act.

I've read it. I've tried challenging them on this, and not succeeded, nor have I heard of anyone else doing so. But by all means, feel free to cite case law at me.

Would you rather Police couldn't move along groups of people acting in a manner likely to be found offensive by a person of reasonable firmness?

Absolutely. The only times I've seen the move-along powers used have been as a way to get rid of undesirables (as defined by uptight wankers) or people questioning Police. If people are not committing an offence, why should to Police be able to create one on the spot?

next time the Police stop you for RBT, use the "you only stopped me cause I'm white/black/red/green/yellow argument"

Actually, the closest I've ever come to an RBT was being moved along when I asked them why they were discriminating against cyclists. But I am glad you agree with me about the usefulness of discrimination compaints.

The federal government has a huge impact

They're a good example of the problems that start at the top and filter right on down.

Maybe you could go through the Crimes Act, No. 40

I doubt any evidence would satisfy someone who believes that Policing is already done in a completely non-discriminatory manner. Australia has had so much legislation that is overtly discriminatory that I'm surprised you can't quote chunks of it at me. Or are you another Howard-like "that's history and has no relevance" with history starting yesterday? Or perhaps you believe that the Police are all completely non-racist and remain free of bias despite dealing with clearly ethnic criminals every day?

everyone loves professional protestors, or renta-a-crowd.

Sorry, I was using that to mean "acts in a professional manner", much as the term is used here wrt to photography. My experience of protests is that even the Socialist Alliance types genuinely support the protests they attend, they just can't imagine doing so without their own agenda and banners.

Any other time we read the paper and think "I don't believe most of what I read"

Didn't you see my previous message questioning the article? I think there are questions to be asked, but what was written raises questions of its own.

[stubbsy]

<mod hat on>Just a reminder people to keep this civil (which it is so far)<mod hat off>

I think Alan's perspective is a valuable one. For those that don't know he is a member of the police force in his day job so his comments come with some knowledge of what he's talking about.

My view is that we have far too much regulation being formulated by politicians as a knee jerk response to media hysteria on all sorts of matters, but in this case the media is reversing this and generating knee jerk reactions in us photographers. At the end of the day this is fantastic manipulation by the media and no doubt generates great revenue for their proprietors - fan hysteria about grubby men molesting little kiddies then when the government overregulates us talk about how the government is taking away our rights.

I believe anyone who molests a child should be locked up for good and I also believe that if I take a pic of a child I shouldn't be immediately assumed to be one of the former. The reality is we need to deal with both extremes in this case and at present our politicians are doing a lousy job of it. This in turn no doubt makes life miserable for those unlucky enforcers of said laws.

I believe what happened is a good thing as is the coverage of it. Why good? Well the public certainly has a more negative perspective of photographers than they used to and it is due in large part to all the negative press about people doing "unacceptable" things with their gear. Stories like the one being talked about here help shape public perception. It's no great leap for your average punter to put themselves in the feet of Mr Dupain and so they start to see the ridiculousness of some of what's happened. Politicians being ever adept at swinging with the pendulum then respond and we move towards a more workable middle ground.

Roll on more stories on photographers rights being trampled. And at the end of the day blame the media, or the pollies, or the child molestors, but PLEASE don't blame the police.

Disclaimer: I am not, nor ever have been, a member of the police force. I am also a small l liberal who hates all those big L Liberals who govern us from Canberra. I have two cats, but I like dogs. Any other personal data is private (I think)

[Greg B]

Someone made a good point about media reporting - we do tend to embrace stories which pander to our own prejudices while (reasonably) doubting everything else.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt - based on a number of incidents, and even taking into account the inability of the media to report with accuracy or balance - that people in positions of authority believe they can stop other people from taking photographs.

And as much as I support the police, they aren't perfect in their application of judgment either - remember the incident several months back with the members of the camera club in Geelong? One of whom was visited at home by the police!! And of course, private security and others are even worse.

The Geelong story, the Southbank Melbourne story, and now this story are all good - they clearly demonstrate that there is a problem. Our government has used fear and devision to stay in power, a bit of racism, xenophobia... no wonder that attitudes at the coalface have been affected.

The Kodak Moment has become Reasonable Cause!

Hopefully, stories of misdirected attention such as the Dupain story will keep this issue alive and ultimately lead to more common sense being applied and a change in the attitudes of those who seek to curtail our ability to pursue our perfectly legal interests.

[moz]

I think Alan's perspective is a valuable one.

I assume that by "Alan" you mean Raskill? He doesn't put the former name in his posts.

he is a member of the police force in his day job so his comments come with some knowledge of what he's talking about.

I suggest that it's not just Police who have a working knowledge of policing and the law. Of course, assuming that any random X represents all X is another common mistake.

I believe anyone who molests a child should be locked up for good

You're assuming that no-one ever changes, even if it's pointed out to them that something they've done is wrong. I hope your universal, unarguable definition of "child molesting" is the one that's enshrined in legislation. It'd be terrible if, say, bathing a child was defined as molesting it... if you're male.

but PLEASE don't blame the police.

Why not? At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Police make mistakes (and commit crimes) too. From the trivial (confiscating the camera of a rich white male) to the mundane (beating Mulrunji Doomadgee to death in front of witnesses), Police make mistakes all the time. They are human (to the best of my knowledge, INAL etc).

Moz

[Aussie Dave]

Why not? At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Police make mistakes (and commit crimes) too. From the trivial (confiscating the camera of a rich white male) to the mundane (beating Mulrunji Doomadgee to death in front of witnesses), Police make mistakes all the time. They are human (to the best of my knowledge, INAL etc).
Moz

I think the thing to remember here is that "the police" is describing the entire group....same as "those pervert photographers" being the group of people that take photos.

There are certain individuals in both groups that tarnish the name of the entire group. We are all against being branded pervert photographers....I imagine the police are thinking along the same lines....IMO.

I agree to a point that there are some very bad-seeded police...but the entore group is not bad.

Of course, others may disagree.....

[Glen]

Moz, I think you are being unrealistic to blame the police for responding to a complaint they are duty bound to. Complain to the politicians of the day if you wish beat police to have the power to decide if they wish to respond to complaints or not.

I think it unrealistic of all posters to expect police to even have a working knowledge of a Hasselblad, there is no requirement they should and it is not in their area of expertise. I would suggest the majority of posters couldn't get an in focus image from a large format camera (and cameras are something we have an interest in), so how can we criticise others?





To all posters, let's not involve Raskill in this, his view as a serving officer is appreciated, but he obviously should not be asked to speak on behalf of or defend every officer in NSW.

[radar]

Some interesting points were raised, on both sides.

Glen, I don't think posters were implying that the police should have a working knowledge of a Hassy. I know I wouldn't have that knowledge. The expectation, for me anyway, was more that you have a square box, a lens on the front, a shutter, then it certainly looks like a camera, it doesn't matter that there is not a preview LCD on the back.

I was not impressed with the whole situation and it seems to be happening more often. I wasn't blaming the police. Blaming them is like shooting the messenger, they didn't put the laws there, they got put there to try to enforce them. We need to be more vocal as photographers. Letters to politicians actually work. Not an email, but a real piece of paper. If they get enough of them, they start to take notice and start looking at making these "extreme" laws a bit more manageble for everyone.

Cheers,

André

[Glen]

Andre, I agree whole heartedly. I think it is unfortunate that people feel they should call the police under these circumstances, even more so that they have to respond. Thirty years ago if someone had rung up and said there was someone at the beach with a camera, the police would have said 'of course there is, it is a tourist attraction". Americans and Japanese are still fascinated by topless bathing. I agree with Stubbsy, the good news is this highlights the problem we have as photographers.

Your suggestions about letters is great. My only wonder is what do we complain about, the publics attitude? As I understand it, presently there is no law against taking photographs in public places, they usually some other law regarding indecent behaviour (?) or similar.

[Raskill]

To all posters, let's not involve Raskill in this, his view as a serving officer is appreciated, but he obviously should not be asked to speak on behalf of or defend every officer in NSW.

Comes with the turf Glen. Everyone will tell you about the time they got a speeding ticket and how crap the copper was. Odd, that if you say your a checkout operator no one says, "I once met this check out operator who was soooo rude..."

I challenge anyone to work a day in my boots (you can wear the bullet resistant vest and 10kg appointments belt also) and NOT go and at least ask some questions to someone taking photos on a beach if someone has raised a concern with you.

99% of the time the photog will you be you or I. Just some 'tog trying to get the perfect shot. But it's the 1% you choose to ignore that turn out to be some horrid kiddie tamperer on parole. You'd soon find yourself out a job if it turned ugly. It's all about CYA (cover your arse).

Moz, interesting that you should ask if people don't change. I think the prison system does little to help rehabilitate anyone who enters it. By far the prisoner with the most minimal chance of rehabilitation is the sexual predator.

Just one article:

It appears with the analysis of the information provided that rehabilitation of a child molester is not only difficult but in many cases may be impossible to do altogether. Treatments often fail, and few individuals seek therapy and medical help for paedophilia than the general public would like.

I agree many convicted criminals can put their past behind them, but wife beaters and kiddie tamperers aren't in that group.

[moz]

Moz, interesting that you should ask if people don't change. I think the prison system does little to help rehabilitate anyone who enters it.

I'm very tempted to just reply "well der Fred" One of the problems I have with the prison system is that it's not designed to rehabilitate, and at best rehabilitation is kludged onto it after the fact with a "better than nothing" attitude. It depends what we think the goal of gaol is - to punish people convicted of crimes, or to reduce crime. Many people are convinced that the former achieves the latter, which is great argument against the idea that humans are rational.

By far the prisoner with the most minimal chance of rehabilitation is the sexual predator... I agree many convicted criminals can put their past behind them, but wife beaters and kiddie tamperers aren't in that group.

From what I've read and seen I think you're right that those two groups are particularly resistant to change, but (like you?) I'm not convinced than imprisoning them is the best approach. Especially not indefinite sentences, which I regard as an admission of abject failure. Unfortunately that can be the best result for some offenders (there are rapists who reoffend within weeks of release, every time they're released... we obviously don't have a good way to deal with those men).

I'm biased here because I've been involved in supporting victims of "satanic abuse" witch-hunts, where the primary offense is being a male involved with children. In those cases prison often produces complete rehabilitation - the offender will never, ever work with children again, even if the opportunity presents itself. Hence my concern that "child abuse" is defined in a meaningful way and convictions obtained legitimately.

But again, my bias is towards societal solutions - I am reguarly exposed to a relative who works as a forensic epidemiologist for the Canadian government, and their/his successes are both interesting and invisble - mostly their results are of the "crimes not committed" type. Broadly, there are known solutions to much crime and the implementation problems are political rather than practical.

Sure, there is definitely another category of offender, but troubling stats exist even for criminals you'd expect to be in it - for example, the chances of a sexual offender also being a victim of sexual abuse are disproportionately greater than the population average. Which also suggests that if we can reduce sexual abuse we could get a snowballing effect over a few generations.