Once you're a prisoner, you are under 99% control of the prison itself. Your freedoms are stripped and only the most basic of rights are given to you. This applies whether you're busted for a roach or whether they just found the other 17 bodies. PRISONS CONTROL THE PRISONERS. This is a basic reality that allows prisons to exist in the first place. It's how you react to this hostile environment that defines ultimately how you will be treated as a prisoner. If you go with the flow- which 99% of all prisoners do- then you do your time, have a few scrapes here and there and ultimately serve your sentence and get released. I am addressing the 1% of prisoners who disagree with the concept of penalization: who refuse to be good prisoners. Who see this as a lifestyle; who will kill over a perceived disrespect.. who see this as a part of life and have to do their part to get their respect... who believe this is the way to go... who never see the big picture: people who cannot be rehabilitated. To them, and for their actions, they wind up in 23 hour lockdown. I'd say 25% of them are mass murderers or something like this but the majority of them are non-compliant prisoners who don't adjust to the system. To them (and since we can't just kill them), we impose the most severe mentally damaging punishment one can possibly imagine- to them it's hell on Earth. And that is being locked in an 8 X 12 space 23 hours a day with absolutely nothing to do, say or think. Only silence and isolation. World War Three could be happening outside but to them it's another countless day of fluorescent lighting in a lifetime of naught. I say we can rehabilitate even the worst of prisoners. Sure they'll never get out of jail but we could at least mentally stimulate them to prevent them from going stark raving mad. There's no reason a Supermax prisoner can't become a doctor of philosophy should he so choose. This means INPUT. We can't lock prisoners up and lose the key because that is cruel and unusual. This means therapy- even for the worst of prisoners. This means spending the time to LISTEN to the prisoner and interject and counterpoint... it means INTERACTION. I spent some time reading up on the worst criminals in our time and there are a lot of them. And in all cases, I believe therapy would be effective in treating them of their horrendous tendencies. If for nothing else, to prevent the prisoner from going insane. And I believe there is value in that. Whereas I believe we define ourselves as a nation through how we treat our poorest, as a first world nation we ethically define ourselves through how we treat the worst prisoners.
I am firmly in favour of humane treatment of prisoners. Locking up 23 hours a day in a tiny cell is not acceptable. I suggested that each cell in a maximum security establishment should be the equivalent of a small apartment. Room to move. A private toilet shower. A desk to work at and suitable entertainment facilities. Each prisoner should be alone (due to the risk of violence), but with barred windows opening to the cells on either side, so that the prisoners can talk to each other. I would also be fully in favour of therapy. The problem is that we do not have any effective therapeutic techniques for the worst. Many ideas have been tried, and they simply do not work. At least not on the worst prisoners.
Sounds perfect to me. I'm against the death penalty mostly because I don't think it is much of a punishment for the criminal and punishes the friends and family of the loved one more when they haven't done anything wrong. It is also too "final", if the person is in fact innocent then you can't bring them back from the dead. However if they are in fact guilty... being left alone with only one's thoughts for company that drives you to a miserable insanity seems like a much deserved punishment considering the heinous acts these people have done. They are the ones who are punished and their loved ones can take some comfort in knowing that they are still alive.
I'm curious... Let us suppose that science devised a method/medicine that would 100% ensure that a criminal never repeated his/her offense? Do you think society would embrace this as a be-all, end-all solution to crime, or would we still demand "punishment" to go along with rehabilitation? In other words, how much of our justice/penal system is motivated by vengeance as opposed to prevention against recidivism or as a deterrent to other potential offenders? What are your thoughts on this concept? (Admittedly, I only skimmed this thread [it is quite, errrr, comprehensive Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!], so I apologize if this topic has already been covered...)
Randie The answer is simple. Most people would never accept that, since most people have an emotional need to see criminals suffer. Myself, I would support the idea. I am pure practician. If it works, do it.
I'd say it's practically 100% vengence espically when it comes to heinous crimes. I'm sure many murders killed because of a specific circumstance involving a single individual and would probably never repeat their actions, yet they are in prison anyway. They don't really need to be rehabilitated they are just being punished.
I believe our worst prisoners should be subjugated to our worst penalization but at the same time they should be allowed the freedom to flourish as a sentient being. And throwing them into a cell and forgetting about them causes spiritual damage (and we are no one to judge people). They should be allowed yard time- supervised to the max, naturally- with electric fences and trained marksmen. They should be free to jump the fence and electrocute themselves if they so choose but overall they should be allowed fresh air and a blue sky. Even the worst of them. And the worst prisoners should be allowed to read from over a thousand books and educate themselves- get their GED or college diploma. I think the last thing we should ever do to another human is deny them their humanity.
I think it really kinda depends on the case, person, and there mental status. I do think these people should be punished for there actions to the fullest extent...we are talking about the worst here so I don't think there is really any point of rehabilitating them. I also think the victim's family should have same more input in it. Like pedophiles or who raped and kill there child. I know I would want more of a input if it was my child.
Question If we have a terrible criminal, who is beyond rehabilitation, and is too dangerous to be released, then why do we treat them in such a way as to cause them unnecessary suffering? That is, why punish them when we could be simply keeping them in quarantine? I mean, are you guys sadistic or something? Why not be practical about it, and simply keep them out of society? Why do we need to punish?
That is what they do isn't it? They are being quarantined. Whether you are locked up alone in your apartment or alone in a cell, it drives you crazy all the same. At the same time while dealing with the worst of the worst, you want to discourage others from doing the same. If you know you will be miserable after doing something you'll probably think twice or thrice before actually going through with it. If you knew you wouldn't be punished for something wrong and you wanted to do it why wouldn't you just go ahead and do it?
OK, Silent. You are using the deterrent argument. I have lost the reference, but I read of a study on this a few years back. Apparently, making incarceration nasty, rather than humane, has no impact on deterrence. Basically, the way it works is this. A criminal does not say : "I can do this crime because the punishment is not too severe." Instead, the criminal says : "If I do this crime, will I get caught and punished?" If a criminal believes he/she will get away with it, then the crime is done. If the criminal believes, for whatever reason, that he/she will likely get caught, then it matters not if the punishment is 6 months in jail or 20 years. Either way, the expectation of getting caught stops the crime. For deterrence, we need criminals to know that the police are on the job and will catch them. The severity of the punishment that follows is pretty much irrelevent. You may recall the success of the 'broken glass' approach to policing and the degree to which all crime fell as a result. In other words, Silent, your argument for punishing criminals in a nasty way is not really valid. It is degree of policing, not degree of punishment that is effective against crime. Of course, with the very worst criminals, there is little or nothing you can do to stop them committing crimes. You could say they are committed to crime.
This argument doesn't apply directly to what I was saying. I said there is no deterrent if there is no punishment. Neither of the statements you mentioned would run through a potential criminal's mind, in a world where there is no punishment for "bad" or "destructive" behavior. Why worry about getting caught if there is no punishment? Who cares if you get caught nothing would happen.
Silent My proposal has been that, for the worst criminals, we apply life-long quarantine. This form of incarceration would be designed to be humane, rather than nasty. But it still provides something that the criminal would really want to avoid. We do not need small cells, and a lack of TV to punish. Merely being incarcerated is sufficient punishment.
Yes. Very seriously. There are plenty of people who want the worst criminals to be heavily punished for purely emotional reasons, and for the most horrible of emotions - anger, hatred, vengeance etc. However, justice is supposed to be delivered free of emotion. Dispassionate. If we can break free of those horrible emotions, then we have to ask ourselves the best way to deal with the worst criminals, in terms of the results we achieve. Now, my feeling is that the only worthwhile goal in this is to reduce as much as possible, any future criminal activities and thus reduce harm to the innocent and decent members of society. To do this, punishment as such may not be required. My view, oft expressed, is that the worst criminals should simply be removed from society so that they may not wreak further damage.
So removing them from society where would they go and how would they be treated there and um who is going to be paying for all this ? Also people will never "break free" of those emotions because they are human.
Zecoac I described in post # 55 how I think we should do this. Who pays for it? You do, and I, and all other taxpayers. This may seem an unconscionable burden, since we will be forking out perhaps $ 150,000 per prisoner per year. However, that is quickly put into perspective when you realise that those same guys, at liberty, are costing society many times that in assorted forms of damage. By keeping them in humane quarantine for life, we are saving ourselves big money. We are also preventing human tragedy large scale, through stopping rape, assault, murder, and the emotional burden of being a victim of other crimes. As DNA pointed out, though, we may be able, without undue risk, to release them once they are too old to be a serious threat.
Well, if I may be brutal - I think the "hardcore" perma-inmates (like the gang-banger leaders and such) should just be put out of our misery... they will never change, don't wish to change, and if let loose will continue the same shit they do in prison - hell, they can kill anyone they want FROM BEHIND BARS... lets face it, even solitary is too good for em, cause they WILL get their orders out somehow.
Kitty Just a reminder. In the USA, the average person executed costs the American taxpayer two and a half times the money compared to a person jailed for life. The reason is the never-ending appeals and court cases, which cost millions. If you want to execute those guys, you either accept a massive increase in cost to the taxpayer, or you deprive the condemned of their rights under American judicial law. And remember that many will actually be innocent of the crime they are condemned for.
i've been reading a few of your last posts and to be frank, they are amazingly stupid. the clincher was the military service cliche/jargon in regard to those who have criminal tendencies. people who are criminals don't necessarily have a problem with self-control as much as it's about their moral values. that's why they are usually manipulative in how they go about it. those who lack control aren't going to learn anything in the military. military does not make one more disciplined or more moral because they don't teach one initiative or how to think/reason in humane terms. people just follow orders (in relation to their job). just because one learns how to buff the floor or spit shine shoes or march perfectly etc doesn't mean that they are going to be disciplined people when no one is watching or on their offtime. it's extremely stupid and unrealistic to not realize that. the military doesn't stop a jerk being a jerk or a wife-beater from doing that when he comes home or an abuser etc or being lazy at home or as an individual or being a drunk slob etc. in fact, the military can even make one even more brutal and objectifying of others because it's relatively harsh and right up some people's alley and attracted to it. there are a lot of assholes in the military too and one of the reasons why they like it as well. besides that, the military is just a job. it's amazing the nonsense that people believe or keep spouting. ____ ____ this post makes me literally gasp in disgust. you are either a utterly horrible person or extremely stupid and ignorant. rape and sexual abuse is a horrible and the most personal violation that literally dooms the person to mental and emotional torture for life in some cases. it is true that there are degrees of lesser to more intense that would be a case by case basis but it's extremely shattering, especially for younger people and children because they are also much more vulnerable. what an asshole you are. it's unbelievable you actually had the nerve to write such heinous and insensitive crap. it's also obvious you are inclined to protect the perpetrator more than the victim. it might even be because you may be like that yourself and that is why you have more sympathy for them. there are people who have committed suicide from the pain, shame and torment from having been sexually violated or abused because it is so degrading to one's sense of self and so deeply intrusive. you also clearly have shit morals or sense of ethics. this is not a case of what is worse as much as when someone violates another, they are forfeiting their own rights. they actually don't really deserve consideration as much but you seem to think they are entitled to it. i also get the impression that YOU are one of those people who have been rejected by someone you want and think it's okay to take your 'revenge' out on women. how i know this is because you mentioned that the rapist might have not found love without "conditions and selflessness." you've got all the makings of a potential rapist if your post is anything to go by. there is no such thing as love without conditions or selflessness (the closest that usually happens is between parent/child), even rapists as well as everyone else has conditions and standards they seek or are attracted to but a rapist want others to accept them or put up with them with no conditions because they want others to submit to them to appease their insecurity or give them a sense of power or control which is sick. typical narcissistic mind. it's extreme and blind selfishness. first off, all this is a ploy to justify sociopathic behavior or motivations because any male or female can find someone that they can relate to or will have relations with them. it may not be the one you want as they may not want you but life is not about getting people that you want because you feel entitled but finding people that also want you. that's what mutual means. even the most ugliest people by societal standards can find mutual relationships as there are all kinds of people out there. however, this ties into how sociopaths think. they are not looking for people they can relate to as much as finding what pleases them or how they can use others. in their mind, this is a "relationship" as long as it pleases them. there are literally rapists who believe that their victim is their 'lover'. that's how narcissistic they can be. if they want something or someone and they can't get it, they can't take it or it's an affront to their ego. and who the hell wants someone that doesn't want them unless they are users or objectifying. obviously, there is no real connection unless it is forced. people who respect others besides their own rights will not push or hold onto someone that doesn't want them when this is realized. to a rapist, that is just a challenge to either force them or destroy them. the victim is not 'vengeful' when they are seeking justiceso you have that twisted in your warped mind. that's just amazingly fucked up thinking. you are painting both the perpetrator and the victim as if it's a case of a mutual relationship and that is really sick and that the victim owes something to the perpetrator. what's disturbing is that is how rapists view it. what's even more dishonest is the justification in your post that because people can be hurt or can be suicidal for other reasons somehow lessens the gravity of a rape crime. that is missing the point entirely. they are not locked up just to be mean to them but because they are a threat as most sexual abusers repeatedly will do so unless their is a deterrant. this is because at the root of it is, again, narcissism. that is why there are laws and punishments for those who don't abide by volitional respect for others unless they are forced to. if they can be rehabilitated then that would be good but for now, it doesn't seem to be the case. you can't rehabiliate a snake in the grass if that is their inherent nature. you can only make them abide by deterrants and threat of punishment in return. people tend to forget that it's very primal for people to be selfish and satisfy themselves without regard for others first. this is not a strange case of a fluke, it's just that many people do exercise some level of basic humanity toward others but in regard to those who are totally selfish; they will take, steal and violate when they have the opportunity and it's not just with rapists but rapists are definitely one of the more dangerous and heinous in destroying people on such a fundamental level. you want to know what the problem is or how rapists think?? here is the answer: they are naricissists and sociopaths. they think they are entitled to have what they desire and if they are rejected, then that is grounds for revenge or taking what they want. after all, they think what they want literally belongs to them or they are entitled. even worse, rapists tend to be perverted and use people like toilet paper or dump on them to project or take out all their perverted, even sadistic and inhumane urges out on. most people have all been rejected or even mistreated by people but that doesn't mean they turn into rapists so don't use that bullshit excuse. not everyone that you want or everything that you want automatically means that you should have it and that is how rapists think or that is their belief system. even worse, some know it's wrong but they don't care. if they can take it or do what they want without getting in trouble, they will. that's why children and young people are usually more vicitmized! many rapists or even most rapists or sexual abusers have had relationships or are in relationships or even married and they still abuse people or children so this totally bullshit excuse that they have no sexual outlet or are rejected is a blatant LIE! also, no one is ENTITLED to be loved or liked by someone and that gives no right of someone to push themselves on others that don't want them, you sicko. people can't get over rape or sexual abuse because of sense of entitlement??! you think they are not entitled to not be fucked with or violated? that's what you think, you fucking bastard?? you think a child that is repeatedly abused sexually and can't get over it or a woman or young girl who is controlled, threatened and abused by someone isn't getting over it because of a sense of entitlement?? also males are sexually violated and even grown men that have been raped that have had no previous violation can be extremely traumatized. that would be even more traumatizing for a boy or young man. in some cases, they could have been repeatedly sexually abused as well as abused in general as is the case with most types of sexual abuse as abusers abuse not just in one way. it's also not true that all abusers were abused themselves. in some cases, it can just be a crime of opportunity and lack of empathy. it's easiest to be selfish. there are degrees of severity in abuse, you FUCKING MORON. anyone with a shred of honesty would realize that. a single case of date rape may be easier to get over for some after a time, if it wasn't too violent or a very minor case of fondling etc but that is not all cases of sexual abuse which can veer into the extremely heinous or traumatic. this is also very different from two kids who are relatively the same age engaging in mutual relations and one being labeled a rapist because of a technicality in law. you, however, have pooled this altogether as if rape is no big deal and are suspiciously more concerned with the rights of the one who didn't care about the rights of OTHERS!! please go to hell where you belong.
