Taken together, the Swiss may very well self-correct, but the future for the rest of Europe looks increasingly bleak due to mass migration: what will it take to change course?
If they cannot be habilitated, they must be incarcerated or killed or deported, there are no other options in existence, no matter any ideology.
Accepting this, then the question becomes what habilitation looks like, and how it is to be made to work.
Is the goal to actually have someone change the way they see things, their moral scales and their behaviour regulator? If so, how is it to be achieved and at what cost, and what guarantees are there for its functionality, and what happens if or when it fails - who bears the blame for the failure, in real terms?
Is the goal to condition someone to behave in the way desired by the state, obeying out of fear and as a reflex response? This is different from the above and suggests other methods be used, but there's a hitch:
Your typical violent /repeat/ offender isn't susceptible to harsh treatment as a catalyst for change, and may be incapable of change even if the will is present; the only thing brutality teaches is when to duck and evade, and how to dodge getting caught, rather than anything desired by the state.
Is the goal to protect past and future victims of violent offenders? If so, does this take priority over habilitation/conditioning? At what cost, and to the responsibility of whom? And what greater societal repercussions might such efforts create?
Also, all of the above only deal with what to do after the crime has been committed. None of the above deal with how to prevent it from happening in the first place; those are different, if related, issues. But none of the above questions are ideological or political in nature: they are all grounded in the reality of the situation. Which is why the debate, in Western nations, ignores them and why the problem is handled so ineptly and inefficiently as it is: any solution must first meet ideological and political criteria correctly to be cosnsidered in the first place, with no regard for cost/benefit, probability of success or any kind of empiricism.
Therefore, the problem will remain and will be exacerbated, and only temporary quick-fixes sich as gated communities will be allowed.
Or as most people in pol-sci will hate one for stating:
A political system (or ideological paradigm) creates its own problems, and cannot solve those by working within the confines of the system that created the problems.
Just imagine the costs: there's 50 such spots in the Arxhof, each of which costs 750,000 to 1m Swiss francs (or US$); assuming that there's a couple of other such institutions across the country (three are named), we're talking 200m per year and inmate--to which we'd have to add staff salaries and operational costs.
Do re-read what these people are saying: we don't even have data, yet we can't figure out what 'success' would be (as you correctly point out).
For Sweden, violent crime and on average /all/ crime plummeted from the 1920s to the 1970s, when it started to rise again.
In part, the huge and sweeping reforms to the prison system undertaken were to blame for that increase, which has never abated since. Prison became about curing a person made ill by soceity, and the crimes were the symtoms of the illness.
I'm not being hyperbolic either, that's still the idea underpinning the prison system here.
I'm looking at it from a realist-pragmatist angle, and am often considering two things:
How to be sure someone is "cured", and what the ROI is per inmate.
So, one of the core issues, then, is the pathologisation of free enterprise, liberalism, and human behaviour that's not collectivist.
As to the ROI per inmate, the median income per person in Switzerland (2022 data) was 6,500-7,000 Swiss francs per month; multiply by 13 (the 13th month is the yearly Christmas bonus), you'd arrive at 84,500-91,000 Swiss francs (before taxes), provided you'd be working full-time.
The above piece holds that the costs per inmate are in the 750K-1m Swiss francs range per year, i.e., that's a magnitude higher. Hence, the ROI question morphs into--is that an acceptable cost per year to prevent 2/3 of inmates from getting into trouble once more?
To be honest, I suppose that legislative changes (no more asylum etc.), pushbacks at the border (at first, unofficially), and, eventually, a 'zero tolerance' for illegal in-migration = one-way tickets back will become the norm before too long.
And not because Switzerland can't afford to spend (waste) that much money for some time; mainly, I'd think, because the situation (wages/ROI-wise) is much worse in the surrounding countries (just yesterday, it was disclosed that there's a family of five from Syria (if memory serves) that's received 48K euros per year in 'social transfer spending' in Vienna (tax-free); by contrast, average wages for full-time work in Austria are around 51,500 euros (before taxes).
Sweden is analogous to that, expenditure/income/tax-wise in this regard.
For a family of two adults and three children, on welfar, for on parent to start working and make a net gain compared to welfare, the income after tax must be in excess of 24 000:-/month.
The typical jobs available to low-ed migrants pay far less; a temp (even if yoy work 40h/week) hired by the local county as a personal assistant to the elderly, nets about 14k-16k.
And the average cost per prisoner ranger from ca 3 500:-/day for the Class III no sec-prisons, to close to 9 000:- for the Bunker (it's really called that, it's built like a bunker). If it's a closed psyche ward for criminally insane, or special treatment (such as the terrorist Rakhmat Akhilov due to other inmates consistently abusing him, inc. other moslems) the cost is even higher.
A basic-level pensioner receives ca 10k/month in pension. This may be after having worked their entire adult life.
To me, spending is the best objective indicator of what someone, individual or state, values both in the monetary and ethical sense.
As such, liberals, the "democratic state" and so-called humanism disgusts me as perversions of humanity.
Later when the article mentions that 1/3 seriously reoffend, 1/3 do so only in a petty manner, and 1/3 stay clean--I wonder how accurate that is, and how it compares to other institutions? Yes the past 4 years+ must have been hell for so many young people, although it seemed Switzerland was not as bad as Austria--and compared to the US, where there weren't necessarily laws but many areas voluntarily closed schools for 2 years or more--there are gonna be some really messed up pupils "graduating" from high school in this generation, across many countries.
As for the police taking the people's side, after a particularly egregious act of violence committed by a migrant, I wouldn't count on it. There have been so many terrible acts and yet little populist violence. When that one guy shot up a hookah parlor in central Germany ~5 years ago, nobody was rallying to save him (well I'm sure a few people were). The police have gotten more and more obedient in this time, for example my home state in the US (Washington) fired all state police who didn't take "the injection," and I've met or heard of several police officers here in Austria who left the profession after 2020-22's insanity. If someone tries to take down a politician and the public supports the would-be assassin, my feeling is the police will crack down hard on that person and his supporters. But who knows.
As to the first paragraph, well, yes, you're correct--the past 5 years were very bad for many, esp. young people. This is compounded by the decay of education--I just looked at my 4th grade (primary school) civics notes--back in 1991/92, we were taught many things that's hard to find in high school and university curricula these days (perhaps I'll do a posting about this).
As to the second paragr., well, I don't think that there's that many subversive officers for many of the reasons you note; I suppose, further, that police's 'passivity' is also a special thing in Austria and Germany (for 'historical' = WW2-related reasons).
Will police stand aside if there's some random/political violence coming from, say, radical extremists (either Antifa or right-wingers)? I don't think so.
My comment, to be precise, was more about mass protests by the population, GDR-in-1989 style, and police might be inclined to signal to whoever politico™ in charge that they'd be siding with the people.
If they cannot be habilitated, they must be incarcerated or killed or deported, there are no other options in existence, no matter any ideology.
Accepting this, then the question becomes what habilitation looks like, and how it is to be made to work.
Is the goal to actually have someone change the way they see things, their moral scales and their behaviour regulator? If so, how is it to be achieved and at what cost, and what guarantees are there for its functionality, and what happens if or when it fails - who bears the blame for the failure, in real terms?
Is the goal to condition someone to behave in the way desired by the state, obeying out of fear and as a reflex response? This is different from the above and suggests other methods be used, but there's a hitch:
Your typical violent /repeat/ offender isn't susceptible to harsh treatment as a catalyst for change, and may be incapable of change even if the will is present; the only thing brutality teaches is when to duck and evade, and how to dodge getting caught, rather than anything desired by the state.
Is the goal to protect past and future victims of violent offenders? If so, does this take priority over habilitation/conditioning? At what cost, and to the responsibility of whom? And what greater societal repercussions might such efforts create?
Also, all of the above only deal with what to do after the crime has been committed. None of the above deal with how to prevent it from happening in the first place; those are different, if related, issues. But none of the above questions are ideological or political in nature: they are all grounded in the reality of the situation. Which is why the debate, in Western nations, ignores them and why the problem is handled so ineptly and inefficiently as it is: any solution must first meet ideological and political criteria correctly to be cosnsidered in the first place, with no regard for cost/benefit, probability of success or any kind of empiricism.
Therefore, the problem will remain and will be exacerbated, and only temporary quick-fixes sich as gated communities will be allowed.
Or as most people in pol-sci will hate one for stating:
A political system (or ideological paradigm) creates its own problems, and cannot solve those by working within the confines of the system that created the problems.
Just imagine the costs: there's 50 such spots in the Arxhof, each of which costs 750,000 to 1m Swiss francs (or US$); assuming that there's a couple of other such institutions across the country (three are named), we're talking 200m per year and inmate--to which we'd have to add staff salaries and operational costs.
Do re-read what these people are saying: we don't even have data, yet we can't figure out what 'success' would be (as you correctly point out).
At some point, ideology will give way to reality.
For Sweden, violent crime and on average /all/ crime plummeted from the 1920s to the 1970s, when it started to rise again.
In part, the huge and sweeping reforms to the prison system undertaken were to blame for that increase, which has never abated since. Prison became about curing a person made ill by soceity, and the crimes were the symtoms of the illness.
I'm not being hyperbolic either, that's still the idea underpinning the prison system here.
I'm looking at it from a realist-pragmatist angle, and am often considering two things:
How to be sure someone is "cured", and what the ROI is per inmate.
So, one of the core issues, then, is the pathologisation of free enterprise, liberalism, and human behaviour that's not collectivist.
As to the ROI per inmate, the median income per person in Switzerland (2022 data) was 6,500-7,000 Swiss francs per month; multiply by 13 (the 13th month is the yearly Christmas bonus), you'd arrive at 84,500-91,000 Swiss francs (before taxes), provided you'd be working full-time.
The above piece holds that the costs per inmate are in the 750K-1m Swiss francs range per year, i.e., that's a magnitude higher. Hence, the ROI question morphs into--is that an acceptable cost per year to prevent 2/3 of inmates from getting into trouble once more?
To be honest, I suppose that legislative changes (no more asylum etc.), pushbacks at the border (at first, unofficially), and, eventually, a 'zero tolerance' for illegal in-migration = one-way tickets back will become the norm before too long.
And not because Switzerland can't afford to spend (waste) that much money for some time; mainly, I'd think, because the situation (wages/ROI-wise) is much worse in the surrounding countries (just yesterday, it was disclosed that there's a family of five from Syria (if memory serves) that's received 48K euros per year in 'social transfer spending' in Vienna (tax-free); by contrast, average wages for full-time work in Austria are around 51,500 euros (before taxes).
Sweden is analogous to that, expenditure/income/tax-wise in this regard.
For a family of two adults and three children, on welfar, for on parent to start working and make a net gain compared to welfare, the income after tax must be in excess of 24 000:-/month.
The typical jobs available to low-ed migrants pay far less; a temp (even if yoy work 40h/week) hired by the local county as a personal assistant to the elderly, nets about 14k-16k.
And the average cost per prisoner ranger from ca 3 500:-/day for the Class III no sec-prisons, to close to 9 000:- for the Bunker (it's really called that, it's built like a bunker). If it's a closed psyche ward for criminally insane, or special treatment (such as the terrorist Rakhmat Akhilov due to other inmates consistently abusing him, inc. other moslems) the cost is even higher.
A basic-level pensioner receives ca 10k/month in pension. This may be after having worked their entire adult life.
To me, spending is the best objective indicator of what someone, individual or state, values both in the monetary and ethical sense.
As such, liberals, the "democratic state" and so-called humanism disgusts me as perversions of humanity.
Exactly my thoughts.
It's also a less-than-friendly reminder how little the powers-that-be value the likes of you, me, and everybody else.
Later when the article mentions that 1/3 seriously reoffend, 1/3 do so only in a petty manner, and 1/3 stay clean--I wonder how accurate that is, and how it compares to other institutions? Yes the past 4 years+ must have been hell for so many young people, although it seemed Switzerland was not as bad as Austria--and compared to the US, where there weren't necessarily laws but many areas voluntarily closed schools for 2 years or more--there are gonna be some really messed up pupils "graduating" from high school in this generation, across many countries.
As for the police taking the people's side, after a particularly egregious act of violence committed by a migrant, I wouldn't count on it. There have been so many terrible acts and yet little populist violence. When that one guy shot up a hookah parlor in central Germany ~5 years ago, nobody was rallying to save him (well I'm sure a few people were). The police have gotten more and more obedient in this time, for example my home state in the US (Washington) fired all state police who didn't take "the injection," and I've met or heard of several police officers here in Austria who left the profession after 2020-22's insanity. If someone tries to take down a politician and the public supports the would-be assassin, my feeling is the police will crack down hard on that person and his supporters. But who knows.
As to the first paragraph, well, yes, you're correct--the past 5 years were very bad for many, esp. young people. This is compounded by the decay of education--I just looked at my 4th grade (primary school) civics notes--back in 1991/92, we were taught many things that's hard to find in high school and university curricula these days (perhaps I'll do a posting about this).
As to the second paragr., well, I don't think that there's that many subversive officers for many of the reasons you note; I suppose, further, that police's 'passivity' is also a special thing in Austria and Germany (for 'historical' = WW2-related reasons).
Here's an example from Nov. 2021: https://fackel.substack.com/p/covidistan-annals-v-hours-after-the
Will police stand aside if there's some random/political violence coming from, say, radical extremists (either Antifa or right-wingers)? I don't think so.
My comment, to be precise, was more about mass protests by the population, GDR-in-1989 style, and police might be inclined to signal to whoever politico™ in charge that they'd be siding with the people.