The QLD government has introduced a bill to amend the corrective services act and remove the requirement for human rights to be adhered to, or for consideration to be given and documents in cases where human rights are violated.

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/bill.first/bill-2025-077

To be clear - Queensland corrective services can already violate human rights, but they must at least consider them and document everything. The aim of this amendment is to remove that requirement.

This would apply to all prisoners, including those incarcerated on remand who have not been trialled and found guilty (thus have presumed innocence under the eyes of the law).
Prisoners on remand make up around 42% of all inmates in Australia as per last data released.
(Australian Bureau of Statistics- Prisoners in Australia 2025)

If you are able to take a moment to sign this petition it would go a long way towards protecting the human rights of Australian citizens.
The petition closes in just a few days so prompt attention would be preferred:

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Petitions/petition-details/4738-26

If you are in a position to do so, forwarding this message along (after removing the reference to my brother lol) to 1-2 people in your contact list would mean the world to me.

With all my heart, thank you ♥️

📣 Dissertation Study Recruitment — Participants Needed!

Hello everyone! I'm excited to share that I'm currently recruiting participants for my doctoral dissertation at Saint Elizabeth University! 🎓

My study, "Pathways from Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) to Juvenile Delinquency," explores the connections between childhood adversity, resilience, and involvement with the juvenile justice system.

This research aims to better understand the experiences and pathways that may shape justice-system involvement, with the hope that this knowledge can support stronger prevention, intervention, and support for justice-involved youth.

🔎 Who can participate?
- Age 21 or older
- Had involvement with the legal system before age 18
- Willing to complete an anonymous online survey
- Survey takes approximately 30–60 minutes

🔗 Survey Link
https://lnkd.in/gnhKvCdj

🎁 As a thank-you: After completing the survey, participants may enter a raffle for a chance to win one of four $25 Amazon gift cards.

If you or someone in your network may be eligible, I would be incredibly grateful if you would share this post or the recruitment flyer with others who may be interested.

Every participant and every share helps move this research forward. ❤️
Thank you to everyone supporting my doctoral journey and helping amplify this research!

"One in six people in prison – nearly 200,000 people nationwide – are serving life sentences. This comprehensive 50-state report examines the prevalence and implications of life sentences across the country, highlighting the disproportionate impact of such extreme sentences on people of color and the inefficacy of punitive measures in improving community safety."

"An incarcerated person writes about how dehumanizing language like “inmate” is destructive."

Officers were indicted in 2023 (4 years after the incident) and there has been no update. I'm reposting in attempt to get eyes back on it.

This article argues that prison sentences should be capped at 20 years in almost all cases. Cases that would require a person not be released after 20 years would result in transfer to civil commitment, which could be extended in 5-year intervals, indefinitely if necessary.

Life in Prison:

Is It Really the Deterrent We Think It Is?

The older I get, the more I question whether life in prison is the deterrent to crime that society wants to believe it is.

For years, we have relied on the idea that if the punishment is severe enough, people will think twice before committing a crime. And on the surface, that makes sense. The threat of spending the rest of your life behind bars should be enough to make anyone reconsider their actions.

But life has taught me that human behavior is rarely that simple.

A punishment can only deter someone who is thinking about the consequences before committing the crime. What happens when someone is consumed by rage, driven by desperation, impaired by drugs or alcohol, or convinced they have nothing left to lose? What about someone who believes they will never get caught? In those moments, the threat of spending decades behind bars may not enter their mind at all.

And for some offenders, life in prison may not even feel like a greater punishment than the life they believe they are already living.

That raises an uncomfortable question: Are we confusing punishment with prevention?

Don't misunderstand me. There are people who commit horrific crimes and pose such a danger to others that society must protect itself. Justice matters. Victims deserve to be heard, and innocent people deserve to live without fear. Some offenders may need to remain incarcerated for the rest of their lives to prevent them from harming others.

But protecting society and deterring crime are two different things.

If the possibility of life in prison were enough by itself to prevent serious crime, we might expect the threat to eliminate far more criminal behavior than it does. The reality is that people continue to commit terrible acts despite knowing the potential consequences.

Perhaps the question we should be asking is not simply, How harsh can we make the punishment? Perhaps we should also ask, How do we stop the crime from happening in the first place?

That means taking prevention seriously. It means addressing violence before it escalates, holding people accountable when they break the law, improving the likelihood that crimes will be solved, and recognizing when addiction, mental illness, or other circumstances require intervention alongside appropriate legal consequences.

None of this excuses criminal behavior. Understanding why people commit crimes is not the same as absolving them of responsibility. It is about finding ways to prevent the next victim from suffering.

There is also a practical question taxpayers deserve to ask: What are we accomplishing with the enormous expense of keeping someone imprisoned for life? In cases where permanent incarceration is necessary to protect the public, the cost may be justified. But when discussing punishment as a deterrent, we should be willing to examine the evidence rather than assume that harsher sentences automatically produce safer communities.

As I get older, I find myself thinking less about revenge and more about results. Justice should never mean ignoring the suffering of victims, but neither should it mean refusing to ask whether our approach is working.

The ultimate measure of a criminal justice system should not be how many people it locks away or how severe its sentences become. It should also be how effectively it protects innocent people, prevents future crimes, and delivers justice when crimes occur.

Maybe life in prison is necessary for certain offenders. But if our only answer to crime is to keep increasing the punishment, we may be treating the consequences of a problem while neglecting its causes.

The goal of prison shouldn't just be to punish people. It should also be to help them become productive members of society so they don't return, but more importantly, to benefit the communities as a whole via education, job training, rehabilitation, etc.

Prisons should protect the public, hold people accountable, and reduce the likelihood of future crime—not simply punish people, hold them for very long periods of time, and release them without preparing them to succeed.

Rehabilitation isn't about excusing crime. It's about reducing the chances that crime happens again, and again. This benefits not only inmates, but also their families, communities, and society as a whole; resulting in a safer, more productive, and thriving society.

We should seriously consider expanding rehabilitation programs, education, and vocational training to give incarcerated people a better chance of succeeding after release.

South Carolina faces challenges with prison overcrowding, long sentences, and not adequately preparing incarcerated people to successfully return to society. I believe we should do more to give people a genuine second chance. SC's current approach concerning sentencing and punishment isn't working.

Norway's rehabilitation-focused approach offers valuable lessons that South Carolina should take seriously.

Shorter Sentences & A Different Approach

Norway generally has a maximum prison sentence of 21 years, with exceptions allowing up to 30 years for certain extremely serious crimes. Its average prison sentence is around eight months, and nearly 90% of unconditional prison sentences are under a year.

Norway also has no death penalty or ordinary life imprisonment. Its approach demonstrates that a country can take crime seriously while emphasizing rehabilitation rather than simply keeping people incarcerated for as long as possible.

Longer prison sentences can contribute to overcrowding as people occupy prison beds for longer periods. When capacity is strained, states may face difficult choices, including spending more taxpayer money or reconsidering whether certain people need to remain incarcerated for as long as they are.

Overcrowding can also put pressure on the resources available for education, vocational training, treatment, and rehabilitation—services that can help people prepare for release and reduce reoffending. Investing in effective programs will also help reduce the long-term financial burden of repeated incarceration.

Normalization and responsibility

Daily life in Norwegian prisons is designed to resemble life outside prison as much as security allows. Prisoners can have opportunities to wear their own clothes, prepare meals, work, study, and exercise outdoors.

The point isn't to make prison a vacation. It's to help people develop everyday responsibilities and habits they'll need when they return home.

Programs, Education, Healthcare, and Essential Services

Norwegian prisoners have access to healthcare, education, and library services through the same public agencies that serve the general population instead of separate prison-run services.

The idea is to help people address the problems that may have contributed to their criminal behavior and give them the skills they need to live independently after release.

The state should evaluate and expand effective programs where need.

Prison Officers Helping With Rehabilitation

Norway emphasizes building relationships between prison officers and inmates. Officers receive training to help them maintain security while supporting rehabilitation, building trust, and preparing prisoners for release.

Conclusion

A successful prison system shouldn't be measured only by how many people it locks up. It should also be measured by how many people return to society without committing another crime.

What do you think SC could learn from Norway's approach to rehabilitation?

For nearly two decades, Osborn’s residents and their families have decried the prison’s conditions.