The Prison System
Quaunaut
The longest seven days in history... Join Date: 2003-03-21 Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
The longest seven days in history... Join Date: 2003-03-21 Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">And why its so Ludicrous</div> No one wants to go to prison....or do they?
I think I know why our crime rates are so high: The punishments are NO WHERE near as hard as they should be.
I'm a firm believer in the Death Penalty- and a firm believer in that we should bring torture back into the mix. Not public torture, but instead, discreet torture, the kind no one would talk of, for it would be too gruesome. That is my own opinion, not what of were gonna talk of here.
The quesiton is: Is the fact that we treat prisoners better than the law abiding citizens right?
Here is a article from <a href='http://www.cnn.com' target='_blank'>CNN.com</a>(http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/inmates_organs020303.html):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The waiting list for heart transplants in this country is a long one. More than 4,000 Americans are on it and about 700 will die this year while waiting. There just aren't enough hearts to go around.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in the 1976 that prisoners have a constitutional right to equal medical care. But the inmate's operation at Stanford could end up costing as much as $1 million, and some California taxpayers have questioned whether this is an appropriate use of their tax money.
Outrage
Outraged citizens vented on talk radio and threatened to rip up their organ donor cards, complaining that ordinary people couldn't afford such top-of-the-line health care.
Mark Williams, a Sacramento radio station host, summed up the reaction by pronouncing, "If we have Osama bin Laden at Folsom State Prison, we would have to give him the kidney he needs … and the taxpayer would have to pay for it."
The medical community frames the debate differently. To it, greatest medical need — not social worth — is paramount in deciding who gets a heart.
"Everyone is treated the same once they get on that list," said Dr. Bruce Reitz, the cardio-thoracic surgeon who was part of the team that performed the transplant operation on the California inmate. "No one is treated differently, and that patient was not treated differently."
To Reitz, it's not possible to value one life over another, although he said heart transplant surgery on a death row inmate might make him think twice about the reasonableness of such a procedure.
In the Stanford Medical Center case, however, Reitz did not face that dilemma. The inmate who got the new heart is serving a 14-year sentence for robbery.
California Department of Corrections officials would not release the name of the transplant recipient, but said the man suffered congestive heart failure in December, was taken to a local hospital and then to Stanford Medical Center.
Only one other inmate in California has received an organ transplant — a kidney recipient six years ago.
Although corrections officials defend transplant surgery for inmates, they concede it creates controversy.
"Every civilized country provides health care to their inmates," said Ron Shansky, a consultant on health care for the California Department of Corrections. "The problem is all the other civilized countries guarantee health care for all their citizens."
Better Off In Jail?
That reality is not lost on 41-year-old Frank Salgado of Las Vegas, Nev. He's suffering from congestive heart failure and initially couldn't get on the transplant waiting list because of money.
When Salgado tried to get financial clearance for the procedure from his health insurance company, it claimed he had not been forthcoming with information about how serious his heart disease actually was in his application for a policy, and cancelled it. He had to raise $150,000 through fund-raisers to get a place on the list.
The news about the prisoner's transplant stunned him.
"I've paid taxes over 20-something years, been a good citizen, a good person in the community and I don't qualify for any help at all," Salgado said. "If I rob a bank and I get away with it, then hopefully I'll have the money for a heart transplant. If I get caught I'll go to jail. And because I need a heart transplant, they have to take care of me. And I'll get a heart, and it'll be paid for."
Without a new heart Frank Salgado will die.
The current film John Q. hits way too close to home for Salgado. In the film, a father takes a hostage in a hospital in the hope of getting a heart transplant for his son — an operation his insurance would not cover.
The dilemma of who has the financial wherewithal to pay for expensive medical procedures does not appear ready to go away anytime soon — not for the general public and not for the country's prison systems.
According to Bob Martinez, a spokesman for the California Department of Corrections, things will get worse.
"The real tsunami that is going to hit all of us, whether it's the state of California or any other state, is the reality that we have an aging prison population just as we have an aging overall population, and the costs are going to continue to increase," he said.
The prisoner with the new heart is recovering nicely.
Frank Salgado wears a pager that will alert him when his donor heart is available. So far he has had four false alarms when people called his pager number by mistake. He has changed the number and is still waiting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That right there sounds pretty stupid to me. There are MANY other instances of oddities in our prison system: Trailers in gated areas of the prisons so that inmates can have sex with their lovers from inside prison, so they can have kids.
All of this just shows- prison is a great place to be. I mean, sure, you look bad to the community, but what if you never see the community again? I mean, you get cable tv, free (may I add GOOD) food, free lodging with heater/Air conditioner, free music, full weight room, special nights, tons of things, all at the taxpayer's expense. Sounds like a paradise to me.
I think I know why our crime rates are so high: The punishments are NO WHERE near as hard as they should be.
I'm a firm believer in the Death Penalty- and a firm believer in that we should bring torture back into the mix. Not public torture, but instead, discreet torture, the kind no one would talk of, for it would be too gruesome. That is my own opinion, not what of were gonna talk of here.
The quesiton is: Is the fact that we treat prisoners better than the law abiding citizens right?
Here is a article from <a href='http://www.cnn.com' target='_blank'>CNN.com</a>(http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/inmates_organs020303.html):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The waiting list for heart transplants in this country is a long one. More than 4,000 Americans are on it and about 700 will die this year while waiting. There just aren't enough hearts to go around.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in the 1976 that prisoners have a constitutional right to equal medical care. But the inmate's operation at Stanford could end up costing as much as $1 million, and some California taxpayers have questioned whether this is an appropriate use of their tax money.
Outrage
Outraged citizens vented on talk radio and threatened to rip up their organ donor cards, complaining that ordinary people couldn't afford such top-of-the-line health care.
Mark Williams, a Sacramento radio station host, summed up the reaction by pronouncing, "If we have Osama bin Laden at Folsom State Prison, we would have to give him the kidney he needs … and the taxpayer would have to pay for it."
The medical community frames the debate differently. To it, greatest medical need — not social worth — is paramount in deciding who gets a heart.
"Everyone is treated the same once they get on that list," said Dr. Bruce Reitz, the cardio-thoracic surgeon who was part of the team that performed the transplant operation on the California inmate. "No one is treated differently, and that patient was not treated differently."
To Reitz, it's not possible to value one life over another, although he said heart transplant surgery on a death row inmate might make him think twice about the reasonableness of such a procedure.
In the Stanford Medical Center case, however, Reitz did not face that dilemma. The inmate who got the new heart is serving a 14-year sentence for robbery.
California Department of Corrections officials would not release the name of the transplant recipient, but said the man suffered congestive heart failure in December, was taken to a local hospital and then to Stanford Medical Center.
Only one other inmate in California has received an organ transplant — a kidney recipient six years ago.
Although corrections officials defend transplant surgery for inmates, they concede it creates controversy.
"Every civilized country provides health care to their inmates," said Ron Shansky, a consultant on health care for the California Department of Corrections. "The problem is all the other civilized countries guarantee health care for all their citizens."
Better Off In Jail?
That reality is not lost on 41-year-old Frank Salgado of Las Vegas, Nev. He's suffering from congestive heart failure and initially couldn't get on the transplant waiting list because of money.
When Salgado tried to get financial clearance for the procedure from his health insurance company, it claimed he had not been forthcoming with information about how serious his heart disease actually was in his application for a policy, and cancelled it. He had to raise $150,000 through fund-raisers to get a place on the list.
The news about the prisoner's transplant stunned him.
"I've paid taxes over 20-something years, been a good citizen, a good person in the community and I don't qualify for any help at all," Salgado said. "If I rob a bank and I get away with it, then hopefully I'll have the money for a heart transplant. If I get caught I'll go to jail. And because I need a heart transplant, they have to take care of me. And I'll get a heart, and it'll be paid for."
Without a new heart Frank Salgado will die.
The current film John Q. hits way too close to home for Salgado. In the film, a father takes a hostage in a hospital in the hope of getting a heart transplant for his son — an operation his insurance would not cover.
The dilemma of who has the financial wherewithal to pay for expensive medical procedures does not appear ready to go away anytime soon — not for the general public and not for the country's prison systems.
According to Bob Martinez, a spokesman for the California Department of Corrections, things will get worse.
"The real tsunami that is going to hit all of us, whether it's the state of California or any other state, is the reality that we have an aging prison population just as we have an aging overall population, and the costs are going to continue to increase," he said.
The prisoner with the new heart is recovering nicely.
Frank Salgado wears a pager that will alert him when his donor heart is available. So far he has had four false alarms when people called his pager number by mistake. He has changed the number and is still waiting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That right there sounds pretty stupid to me. There are MANY other instances of oddities in our prison system: Trailers in gated areas of the prisons so that inmates can have sex with their lovers from inside prison, so they can have kids.
All of this just shows- prison is a great place to be. I mean, sure, you look bad to the community, but what if you never see the community again? I mean, you get cable tv, free (may I add GOOD) food, free lodging with heater/Air conditioner, free music, full weight room, special nights, tons of things, all at the taxpayer's expense. Sounds like a paradise to me.
Comments
ive no real insight into this (living outside the US). But I suspect its FAR easier to claim prison is nice and rosey from the outside than it is from the inside.
Personally, even if it were furnished like a palace, I'd prefer to be poor and free - I go stir crazy if I'm cooped up in my house for too long, especially if I don't have anything to do at home.
I believe and have always believed the prision system to be completly flawed and an insult to humanity. It takes problems after they have already happened and punishes people that have already commited crimes, anyone who thinks it is a deterant is fooling themselves, no one thinks about jail when they are stealing to support a drug habit or part of a gang that is murdering people in the streets. The idea that you can rehabilitate someone in prision is a joke, anyone going into to prision for a non-violent crime is three times more likely to go back in for a violent one after release.
Criminals and crime is a product of social circumstance and is directly linked to a persons development, no one is born a junky/murder/theif. Putting these people in prision assumes that you acknowledge there is a problem in society, but putting them in prision and then doing nothing to fix the root of this problem is spitting in the face of human rights. You are saying you have the right to incarcirate someone for the rest of their lives but have no obligation to fix the socio-economic system that spawned them. It's pathetic and cowerdly.
The financial aspects of it are outrageous as well, it can take upwards of 30 million dollars to execute one inmate on death row after mandatory appeals and incarciration costs.
Bottom line this system doesn't prevent crime and only encourages a disregard for humanity.
PS in case you missed it in that Paragraph, Prision, no matter how grousome, will NEVER be a deterant for crime. People who commit these crimes simply do not think ahead at the time, no amount of future torture/punishment will make them change their minds right that second.
I believe and have always believed the prision system to be completly flawed and an insult to humanity. It takes problems after they have already happened and punishes people that have already commited crimes, anyone who thinks it is a deterant is fooling themselves, no one thinks about jail when they are stealing to support a drug habit or part of a gang that is murdering people in the streets. The idea that you can rehabilitate someone in prision is a joke, anyone going into to prision for a non-violent crime is three times more likely to go back in for a violent one after release.
Criminals and crime is a product of social circumstance and is directly linked to a persons development, no one is born a junky/murder/theif. Putting these people in prision assumes that you acknowledge there is a problem in society, but putting them in prision and then doing nothing to fix the root of this problem is spitting in the face of human rights. You are saying you have the right to incarcirate someone for the rest of their lives but have no obligation to fix the socio-economic system that spawned them. It's pathetic and cowerdly.
The financial aspects of it are outrageous as well, it can take upwards of 30 million dollars to execute one inmate on death row after mandatory appeals and incarciration costs.
Bottom line this system doesn't prevent crime and only encourages a disregard for humanity.
PS in case you missed it in that Paragraph, Prision, no matter how grousome, will NEVER be a deterant for crime. People who commit these crimes simply do not think ahead at the time, no amount of future torture/punishment will make them change their minds right that second. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, what exactly did you have in mind dr.d? I agree with most of what you said, but I fail to see a better alternative. People have tried treating criminals as the victims and it didnt work. So what do you suggest we do?
Doesn't sound too bad.
I believe and have always believed the prision system to be completly flawed and an insult to humanity. It takes problems after they have already happened and punishes people that have already commited crimes, anyone who thinks it is a deterant is fooling themselves, no one thinks about jail when they are stealing to support a drug habit or part of a gang that is murdering people in the streets. The idea that you can rehabilitate someone in prision is a joke, anyone going into to prision for a non-violent crime is three times more likely to go back in for a violent one after release.
Criminals and crime is a product of social circumstance and is directly linked to a persons development, no one is born a junky/murder/theif. Putting these people in prision assumes that you acknowledge there is a problem in society, but putting them in prision and then doing nothing to fix the root of this problem is spitting in the face of human rights. You are saying you have the right to incarcirate someone for the rest of their lives but have no obligation to fix the socio-economic system that spawned them. It's pathetic and cowerdly.
The financial aspects of it are outrageous as well, it can take upwards of 30 million dollars to execute one inmate on death row after mandatory appeals and incarciration costs.
Bottom line this system doesn't prevent crime and only encourages a disregard for humanity.
PS in case you missed it in that Paragraph, Prision, no matter how grousome, will NEVER be a deterant for crime. People who commit these crimes simply do not think ahead at the time, no amount of future torture/punishment will make them change their minds right that second. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, what exactly did you have in mind dr.d? I agree with most of what you said, but I fail to see a better alternative. People have tried treating criminals as the victims and it didnt work. So what do you suggest we do? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would suggest sweeping changes in the lower economic structure of this country, instead of passing crutch support systems like affirmiative action and welfare actually take the time and effort and money to rebuild these communities and put them on par with middle and upper-middle class communites in terms of education and economics.
I would also suggest a massive depopulation of huge urban areas, reduce real estate projects by at least a third and space out the populace. Overcrowding and economic straits are just a catalyst for violent crime.
Both of these suggestions would never happen because of the huge annual losses in revenue this would cause for the administration, unfortunatly in the end goverment is a business before it is a humanitarian entity.
My mother (before I turned 18) didn't have really enough money to able to pay for both her health insurance and everything else and then also have to pay for mine, so the Dr. Dynasaur plan (put in by fmr. Governor Dr. Howard Dean) gave me health insurance, for about 1/8th the cost of what it would have cost under my mothers insurance plan.
I would have been about 300$ a month because I was in the "high risk" category. She paid about 30$ a month.
I believe and have always believed the prision system to be completly flawed and an insult to humanity. It takes problems after they have already happened and punishes people that have already commited crimes, anyone who thinks it is a deterant is fooling themselves, no one thinks about jail when they are stealing to support a drug habit or part of a gang that is murdering people in the streets. The idea that you can rehabilitate someone in prision is a joke, anyone going into to prision for a non-violent crime is three times more likely to go back in for a violent one after release.
Criminals and crime is a product of social circumstance and is directly linked to a persons development, no one is born a junky/murder/theif. Putting these people in prision assumes that you acknowledge there is a problem in society, but putting them in prision and then doing nothing to fix the root of this problem is spitting in the face of human rights. You are saying you have the right to incarcirate someone for the rest of their lives but have no obligation to fix the socio-economic system that spawned them. It's pathetic and cowerdly.
The financial aspects of it are outrageous as well, it can take upwards of 30 million dollars to execute one inmate on death row after mandatory appeals and incarciration costs.
Bottom line this system doesn't prevent crime and only encourages a disregard for humanity.
PS in case you missed it in that Paragraph, Prision, no matter how grousome, will NEVER be a deterant for crime. People who commit these crimes simply do not think ahead at the time, no amount of future torture/punishment will make them change their minds right that second. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, what exactly did you have in mind dr.d? I agree with most of what you said, but I fail to see a better alternative. People have tried treating criminals as the victims and it didnt work. So what do you suggest we do? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would suggest sweeping changes in the lower economic structure of this country, instead of passing crutch support systems like affirmiative action and welfare actually take the time and effort and money to rebuild these communities and put them on par with middle and upper-middle class communites in terms of education and economics.
I would also suggest a massive depopulation of huge urban areas, reduce real estate projects by at least a third and space out the populace. Overcrowding and economic straits are just a catalyst for violent crime.
Both of these suggestions would never happen because of the huge annual losses in revenue this would cause for the administration, unfortunatly in the end goverment is a business before it is a humanitarian entity. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what your saying is that you want a communist or socialist government, instead of the good capitalist gov we have? While both of those are great ideas- they don't work. 1 person will screw them up.
I believe and have always believed the prision system to be completly flawed and an insult to humanity. It takes problems after they have already happened and punishes people that have already commited crimes, anyone who thinks it is a deterant is fooling themselves, no one thinks about jail when they are stealing to support a drug habit or part of a gang that is murdering people in the streets. The idea that you can rehabilitate someone in prision is a joke, anyone going into to prision for a non-violent crime is three times more likely to go back in for a violent one after release.
Criminals and crime is a product of social circumstance and is directly linked to a persons development, no one is born a junky/murder/theif. Putting these people in prision assumes that you acknowledge there is a problem in society, but putting them in prision and then doing nothing to fix the root of this problem is spitting in the face of human rights. You are saying you have the right to incarcirate someone for the rest of their lives but have no obligation to fix the socio-economic system that spawned them. It's pathetic and cowerdly.
The financial aspects of it are outrageous as well, it can take upwards of 30 million dollars to execute one inmate on death row after mandatory appeals and incarciration costs.
Bottom line this system doesn't prevent crime and only encourages a disregard for humanity.
PS in case you missed it in that Paragraph, Prision, no matter how grousome, will NEVER be a deterant for crime. People who commit these crimes simply do not think ahead at the time, no amount of future torture/punishment will make them change their minds right that second. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, what exactly did you have in mind dr.d? I agree with most of what you said, but I fail to see a better alternative. People have tried treating criminals as the victims and it didnt work. So what do you suggest we do? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would suggest sweeping changes in the lower economic structure of this country, instead of passing crutch support systems like affirmiative action and welfare actually take the time and effort and money to rebuild these communities and put them on par with middle and upper-middle class communites in terms of education and economics.
I would also suggest a massive depopulation of huge urban areas, reduce real estate projects by at least a third and space out the populace. Overcrowding and economic straits are just a catalyst for violent crime.
Both of these suggestions would never happen because of the huge annual losses in revenue this would cause for the administration, unfortunatly in the end goverment is a business before it is a humanitarian entity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what your saying is that you want a communist or socialist government, instead of the good capitalist gov we have? While both of those are great ideas- they don't work. 1 person will screw them up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You say that like our capitalism-based society isn't screwed up. Look at the guy and his insurance bullsh*t, his company was happy to take his money until he wanted what he was paying for in return. Certain things should be socialized, medicine is one of them.
My suggestion would actually boost a capitalistic society in the end by producing more productive members of it, the only problem is there are people running the country who would never accept the losses associated with this.
Depopulation is just a good idea all around, overcrowding is a serious problem in a lot of places, just look at the hordes of homeless people in Frisco. There really isn't a point in living in a place you can't afford to anyway I think goverment sponsored transfer programs would be a great idea, say your below the poverty line in Los Angeles you can have a perfectly good home in Kansas or somesuch, they could help transfer whole communites and this might even spur job growth in middle America, unemployed people in LA make employed people in Nebraska.
This of course puts goverment in charge of state and local issues which is pretty much never going to happen since we know how much people like change.
If you want to debate this with me debate this, what is better a kid being raised just by his mother livng in a ghetto in South Central with no teachers to teach him and no way to get to school and absolutely no hope of finding a job and a good chance of getting involved in crime, or that same kid being raised just by his mother living in a town where they have more teachers than students and a career waiting for him as soon as he wants it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Depopulation is just a good idea all around, overcrowding is a serious problem in a lot of places, just look at the hordes of homeless people in Frisco. There really isn't a point in living in a place you can't afford to anyway I think goverment sponsored transfer programs would be a great idea, say your below the poverty line in Los Angeles you can have a perfectly good home in Kansas or somesuch, they could help transfer whole communites and this might even spur job growth in middle America, unemployed people in LA make employed people in Nebraska.
This of course puts goverment in charge of state and local issues which is pretty much never going to happen since we know how much people like change.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a great idea, but like you said, people hate change(really, they fear it), so it wouldn't work. But, it makes sense.
*Goes to the congress S&I board*
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It bloody well was NOT pure communism. It wasn't even <i>close</i>.
Back on topic, even an inmate in a prison has the right to basic human rights. Medical treatment must surely be one of these things. Now when a prisoner can get a heart transplant but a free citizan cannot, the problem does not lie with the prison system; it lies in the society and government that deprives it's citizens of health care. If we start denying prisoners rights such as medical treatment, healthy food and exercise, then we will certainly be a very sorry excuse for a nation.
Health care is something that a government should provide for it's citizens. It just makes sense. You end up with a healthier, more productive populace (this is capitalism at work people! ). Yes, the idea is socialist in nature. That doesn't mean it isn't a damn good idea. Australia is a capitalist democratic country and we have free health care. That alone shows that the two systems can work side-by-side.
And what good is locking up people for long periods of time? If the government is cheap **** who can't build and finance a proper prison facility, and just throw people in a cell for 23 hours a day, they shouldn't be locking people up for massive amounts of time. Doesn't America have the highest per capita prison population in the world?
Quanunaut, I feel you are just some well off surburban person who is comfy, and is terrified of all these horrible criminals and the horrible things they do. You certainly are confident that you will never end up in prison. It's all good as long as YOU don't end up in the slammer eh? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Did you like how they did things in the 1800s and earlier? You think they changed things just because society magically went soft? Nope, there was people who saw how retarted such stuff was, and tried(and succeeded) to get conditions changed.
When I see suposedly light sentences for criminals, I know that they have lost their freedom. Doesn't matter if they aren't locked up in a cell most of the day, they still have lost their freedom. I also assume that prison guards probably don't care what prisoners do to each other in some places(as long as the don't badly hurt each other). Also, I realize that I too could end up there one day. I could get framed or falsely charged, or I could break the law even. Think you'll never break the law? **** can happen I say.
I believe that criminals should get what they give; if they do [whatever] to someone, they should get that [whatever] done to them, no?
Of course, there should be exceptions, in cases when people are mentally disabled or they have other medical problems which could have severely affected their judgement.
I've read an article about a person who was convicted on grounds of rape, torture, and many other things - done to several young children. He kept them confined in their home for most of their life. Humane societies came to help once or twice - but they were turned away for some reason... sorry, I forgot. Well, after about 10 years of hell for the children, the person was finally put in jail or something, and the time was less than 5 years, I think.
<i>5 years for just about ruining several children's lives, emotionally and physically, forever.</i>
Judicial system is b0rken... (or court system or whatever... forgot the proper term)
And what good is locking up people for long periods of time? If the government is cheap **** who can't build and finance a proper prison facility, and just throw people in a cell for 23 hours a day, they shouldn't be locking people up for massive amounts of time. Doesn't America have the highest per capita prison population in the world?
Quanunaut, I feel you are just some well off surburban person who is comfy, and is terrified of all these horrible criminals and the horrible things they do. You certainly are confident that you will never end up in prison. It's all good as long as YOU don't end up in the slammer eh? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Did you like how they did things in the 1800s and earlier? You think they changed things just because society magically went soft? Nope, there was people who saw how retarted such stuff was, and tried(and succeeded) to get conditions changed.
When I see suposedly light sentences for criminals, I know that they have lost their freedom. Doesn't matter if they aren't locked up in a cell most of the day, they still have lost their freedom. I also assume that prison guards probably don't care what prisoners do to each other in some places(as long as the don't badly hurt each other). Also, I realize that I too could end up there one day. I could get framed or falsely charged, or I could break the law? even. Think you'll never break the law? **** can happen I say. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, just to let you know, I DON'T live in a "suburban" area, I live in one of the highest-crime areas in my city. Its practically IN the ghetto, not too far from. Luckily, we haven't had much trouble(other than insane amounts of graffitti), but my neighbors have had bullets go through their windows, cars come up in the middle of the night, people going through their backyards, robbing them, killing pets, different things like that.
So, I guess I'm NOT some 'comfy' suburban person terrified of all these criminals. All I know, is that back in the 40s, crime wasn't that bad, because the punishments were just. You shoot someone? *Bzzzzt* In self defense? Ok, give us money. Oh, because they were threatening you? Do you have a witness? Ok then, go-
Instead now, there are situations(like this one, that happened to someone living down the street) where a burglar busted into their house, the dad ran up to him with a standard hunting shotgun, and blew a hole right through the guy. Guess how long the dad was in prison? 20-30 years. GG.
Don't make assumptions. Its like that old saying:
"You know why they spell assume the way they do? Because it makes a '****' out of 'u' and 'me'".
And as a add-on to this post:-edit-
Do you think losing FREEDOM is that much? Woop-dee-frickin-do. Most countries don't even have it, and it doesn't change much when they get in prison. Prison isn't that bad- I know SEVERAL guys who've gone, I've visited them, and they say that as long as your smart and don't talk stuff, you'll be fine, and maybe even have a 'good time'.
2nd add on(all within 5 minutes):-edit-
And yes, it IS all good as long as I don't end up in the slammer. If I go- fine. I'll do my best to prove wrong, then once I'm out, I'll take the law into my hands and find that ****, then shove him in their face, hoping for compensation. If I don't have a chance- fine. At least I know that our system is thorough. Don't get me wrong: I'll be ****, but I'd rather run the risk of being framed, then have the crime stay this damned high.
While that is insane, thats a problem with the legal system, not the prison system.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you think losing FREEDOM is that much? Woop-dee-frickin-do. Most countries don't even have it, and it doesn't change much when they get in prison<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where do you get this impression that most countries don't have 'freedom'?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I go- fine. I'll do my best to prove wrong, then once I'm out<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assuming it wasn't a death penalty case... But the whole 'being framed' thing is more of a problem with the legal system then teh prison system.
If I go- fine. I'll do my best to prove wrong, then once I'm out
Assuming it wasn't a death penalty case... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the rest of my post, smart one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE
Do you think losing FREEDOM is that much? Woop-dee-frickin-do. Most countries don't even have it, and it doesn't change much when they get in prison <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where do you get this impression that most countries don't have 'freedom'?
Maybe because of the fact that most countries don't? <span style='color:white'>What did you say about assumptions? Oh, yeah...</span> Some of the most populated countries don't (just about all the middle east, africa, india, china, parts of russia, small areas in europe[from what I've heard, with europe], numerous countries in south america and central america...)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE
Instead now, there are situations(like this one, that happened to someone living down the street) where a burglar busted into their house, the dad ran up to him with a standard hunting shotgun, and blew a hole right through the guy. Guess how long the dad was in prison? 20-30 years. GG.
While that is insane, thats a problem with the legal system, not the prison system.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Point taken.
And from what i've heard, the US as well (USAPATRIOT act, DMCA, ect). 'Freedom' is a very, very subjective term, and what bothers me about it in your post is that you equate the lack of freedom one has in prison to the lack of freedom one has in 'most' countries. In other words, equaiting said countries to prisons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At least I know that our system is thorough. Don't get me wrong: I'll be ****, but I'd rather run the risk of being framed, then have the crime stay this damned high.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point, maybe we should administer some sort of test in schools to screen for kids that might someday commit a crime, and then shoot them in the back of the head. Would definatly lower the crime rate.
And from what i've heard, the US as well (USAPATRIOT act, DMCA, ect). 'Freedom' is a very, very subjective term, and what bothers me about it in your post is that you equate the lack of freedom one has in prison to the lack of freedom one has in 'most' countries. In other words, equaiting said countries to prisons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At least I know that our system is thorough. Don't get me wrong: I'll be ****, but I'd rather run the risk of being framed, then have the crime stay this damned high.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point, maybe we should administer some sort of test in schools to screen for kids that might someday commit a crime, and then shoot them in the back of the head. Would definatly lower the crime rate. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen, amen.
No, but seriously: They haven't done anything yet. As said before, there is NO WAY that someone can be said to commit a crime, or someone who can't. But either way, let me ask you this:
Which do you have a better chance of?
Getting shot, or a friend of yours being shot?
or
Getting framed, or one of your friends being framed?
Oh ya. GETTING SHOT IS A LOT EASIER.
Personally, even if it were furnished like a palace, I'd prefer to be poor and free - I go stir crazy if I'm cooped up in my house for too long, especially if I don't have anything to do at home. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Watch the video documentary on Angola prison. Each cell has a nice TV infront of it, and some of the nicer muderers get to even do activities in town. (In case you didn't know, Angola is a maximum security facility with an 85% mortality rate) Tax dollars well spent. "Reformatory" My **** it is.
Neither have you, but you were framed. You insist that you wouldn't mind being executed wrongly because "at least then I'd know the system was being thurough", but my sarcastic method is also being thurough.
So, I guess I'm NOT some 'comfy' suburban person terrified of all these criminals. All I know, is that back in the 40s, crime wasn't that bad, because the punishments were just. You shoot someone? *Bzzzzt* In self defense? Ok, give us money. Oh, because they were threatening you? Do you have a witness? Ok then, go-<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quaunaut, I was a little too rude, sorry dude. Besides, you have 1700 posts, more respect is due. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead now, there are situations(like this one, that happened to someone living down the street) where a burglar busted into their house, the dad ran up to him with a standard hunting shotgun, and blew a hole right through the guy. Guess how long the dad was in prison? 20-30 years. GG.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This illustrates my point. With the current justice system, if a murderer gets 20-30 years, there is a chance an innocent will get this for defending himself. In a society where sentences are lenient, the murderer would get a light sentence, but so would this guy. I don't think murderers getting 50 years greatly encourages hardcore criminals, criminals who only survive by crime(and maybe are a little deranged), to quit being criminals. It just keeps these murderers off the streets. That would be fine, except that there is an endless supply of said criminals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And yes, it IS all good as long as I don't end up in the slammer. If I go- fine. I'll do my best to prove wrong, then once I'm out, I'll take the law into my hands and find that ****, then shove him in their face, hoping for compensation. If I don't have a chance- fine. At least I know that our system is thorough. Don't get me wrong: I'll be ****, but I'd rather run the risk of being framed, then have the crime stay this damned high<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess im the opposite, I'd rather be guranteed that I would get a laughable sentence for killing a man in self defense. Sadly, it's not always about being framed, I think it might actually be more likely that the police make a mistake about who they arrest and are suspicious of.
Ah but here is the problem, you spend all this time in prison, quite alot of time perhaps, and now you take the law into your own hands. I actually don't quite get what you mean? Getting venegance perhaps? If so, with harsh sentences you'll be back in jail again for a long period of time.
With light sentences you can get revenge and not get locked up for a long time.
I know you are concerned about crime being so high, but it is not related to prison sentences IMO. America is plenty strict on crime, after all it's not unheard of to get a long time for murder. This dad you mentioned got 20-30 years for SELF DEFENSE! How much longer prison sentences do you need? Surely if these sentences worked, crime wouldn't be an issue.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Watch the video documentary on Angola prison. Each cell has a nice TV infront of it, and some of the nicer muderers get to even do activities in town. (In case you didn't know, Angola is a maximum security facility with an 85% mortality rate) Tax dollars well spent. "Reformatory" My **** it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok that is interesting. But can they do ANY legal activity that they want? Probably not. Also, this is Angola. Surely it can't be the same at all maximum security prisons. Remember, they might not greatly suffer, but they just wasted 20+ years of their life. They are alot older when they get out, and they are probably not alot better off job or finance wise then when they were incarcerated.
This is actually an interesting point. If a person only knows how to do crime when they are incarcerated at 25, and they are released at 65, what the hell are they going to do? Probably crime...
Even if murderers get such long sentences, what really bugs me is how long the sentences can be for non-murderers or non-rapists.
One final point. How are sentences in Europe? I remember hearing on the news that they are lower than in Canada(and Canada is probably lower than the US). But the internet can sometimes be very **** for finding specific facts about some subjects. If some countries have much lower sentences than the US, yet they don't have much higher crime, that would send an interesting message IMO.
To answer Lazys question, both sentences and prison conditions are generally milder in European states (Depending on how you define 'Europe', of course. I'm not talking about Russia.). 'Life long' sentences, for example, mean 15 years here, and only the so-called 'preventive detention' can further that time. Yet, Germany has a crime rate that's anything but higher than that of the United States.
This can be mainly explained by a point dr.d already raised: Crimes, especially 'traditional', that is violent crimes, are mostly not commited as the result of a rational decision. They happen on impulse, and this applies to stuff ranging from grabbing that old ladys handbags to a wife beating the drunken and agressive husband with a pan, to rape. Punishments are thus seldomly of deterring function in the case of crimes that could result in prison sentences (the situation is a little different with the fines put upon such things as corporate crimes, but let's don't go there).
This leads me to another point: Never assume a prison to be a 'nice' place. Even if one tried - and frankly, nobody really does - it'd be impossible to make an enforced society of partitially heavily desocialiced individuums something a normal human would wish to be a part of. Even with the constant intervention and regulation of guards, psychologists, spiritual guides, or social workers, the atmosphere of a prison is at best ruled by hidden violence. TV sets, acceptable food, health care, any kind of 'luxury' you hear about serves primarily a simple purpose: Keeping the kettle from exploding, which it inevitably would if you deprived the inmates from all the daily benefits a citizen of the First World has grown used to.
The call for harder living conditions within a prison can thus not be justified by the claims of deterrance. Its main foundation is in my experience a hope for revenge - the notion that a criminal should 'get what he deserves', and I doubt anyone reading this can truly claim not to understand such an opinion; our basic imagination of justice just crys for 'an eye for an eye' (which is, as I should note here, one of the most grossly misunderstood Biblequotes ever, but that's another topic).
Well, the matter of fact is that a repetition, or an approximation of a repetition of an injustice commited by a person through the organized, strictly rational hands of a state will never be just. There's a difference between drawing a knife in a heated moment and doing something very, very stupid, and a state making the idiot who did this methodically suffer through a daily ordeal for years on end.
Revenge can never be the basis upon which a state founds its jurisdiction, not only because it'd inevitably descend to the morallic level of the guilty person, but also because it would inevitably exceed said persons cruelty.
What, then, is the point of a prison? Despite Dr.Ds sharp arguments, I'll have to insist on the necessity of such an institution, because, although we'd like to think so, not all criminality can be blamed on the culprits environment:
You can correct the social flaws within our society, but people will still steal, not because they haven't got enough, but because they want more - a very prominent example would be Winona Ryders little cashless shopping tour.
You can ensure the equallity of men and women, but you won't be able to fully avoid abusive marriages and the potential crimes that stem from them, simply because some people <i>have</i> narcisstic disorders that make them treat their close ones horribly.
You can pass egalitarian legislation, but seeing our history, you'll be very hard pressed to rid the world of ethnic tension.
You can try whatever you want to try, you won't be able to find and eliminate the societal source of pedophile crimes.
Thus, a prison has to exist for two reasons:
One, to seperate dangerous individuums, whether for a limited or unlimited time, from society and thus prohibiting them from harming it, and two, to resocialize those who commited crimes due to environmental influences or personal influences that can be avoided. I pray to god that two will become obsolete one day, but as of now, it stays a necessity.
Neither of these two objectives can be helped with unreasonably harsh conditions, on the contrary: While the latter group of prisoners will be more likely to allow others to rehabilitate them within an acceptable environment, the first group can be held in a state of acceptance that will keep it from openly resisting the punishment, which in turn reduces costs on guards and other measures to forcibly keep the kettle down.
You can correct the social flaws within our society, but people will still steal, not because they haven't got enough, but because they want more - a very prominent example would be Winona Ryders little cashless shopping tour.
You can ensure the equallity of men and women, but you won't be able to fully avoid abusive marriages and the potential crimes that stem from them, simply because some people <i>have</i> narcisstic disorders that make them treat their close ones horribly.
You can pass egalitarian legislation, but seeing our history, you'll be very hard pressed to rid the world of ethnic tension.
You can try whatever you want to try, you won't be able to find and eliminate the societal source of pedophile crimes.
Thus, a prison has to exist for two reasons:
One, to seperate dangerous individuums, whether for a limited or unlimited time, from society and thus prohibiting them from harming it, and two, to resocialize those who commited crimes due to environmental influences or personal influences that can be avoided. I pray to god that two will become obsolete one day, but as of now, it stays a necessity.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I agree that prisons are a necessity as of now, I am still at odds about how they are employed (in the US) with a total disregard for humanity. Now don't start saying I want to treat criminals like victims, far from it, if someone were to break into my home with an intent to rob or harm anyone in that household they would very likely be shot by a benelli m3. My point, which I'll clarify a bit, is that when a country employs such harsh reparations they have an <i>obligation </i> to do some actual premptive work, as in clean up communites, make rehab a more viable option for people living below the poverty line, (or better yet decriminalize the drugs causing the violence, but that's a different subject) and of course the best solution to the problem, depopulate overcrowded urban areas. Depopulation would gurantee a lowered crime rate, overpopulated areas have been shown to have higher crime rates pretty much 100% of the time. This is of course just common sense as the more strangers you have forced together, whether it be in beverly hills or south central, the more likely that there will be some sort of violent crime. The problem is as long as real estate stays the gold mine that it is lowering congestion in urban areas will not be an option anyone in charge of such things is willing to take.
Now aside from my philosophical qualms with it I have problems with how prisions are run in general in the US. Now many people think that the strict laws in the US are because of idealogy, while partially true, the outstanding reason for 35 year+ sentances is as most things a financial one. Prisions have actually become a very lucrative business, with owners getting massive kickbacks and the Tax everyone has heard about. The TVs and meals in prison are all paid by tax dollars as part of the expenses associated with housing a prisioner. The US is also the only first world country in the world still employing the death penalty, now you may again assume this is because of moral ground, but if you take a look at the way death row is run you'll see a glaring problem. There is a process called mandatory appeals when someone is sentanced to death, no matter how they plead or what the criminal wants these appeals will happen, the appeals are the reason someone will stay on death row for 40-50 years before being executed. There have been cases with highly publicized criminals like Ted Kasingsky (sp) where he had enough media attention to get his execution done rather quickly, but for the most part an average criminal sentanced to death will spend a minimum of 15 years waiting for appeals to finish, and one set of appeals can cost up to 30 million dollars, and since all the attorneys involved are public and work for the goverment they are the ones getting paid.
My intention was to show that unnecessarily harsh living conditions are in <i>no</i> case desirable, and that prisons can not be avoided completely.
Note by the way that I'm a strong objector to the capital punishment; the points I raised about stately revenge apply there like nowhere else.