The Way Jail Should Be Run!
Burncycle
Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
<a href='http://www.snopes.com/crime/deserts/pink.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.snopes.com/crime/deserts/pink.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's even hotter than usual in Phoenix, the Associated Press reports:
About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.
On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before. Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their pink socks.
"It feels like you are in a furnace," said James Zanzo't, an inmate who has lived in the tents for 1 1/2 years. "It's inhumane."
Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, is not sympathetic. He said Wednesday that he told the inmates: "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths. " <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is the way he is, and he has been re-elected several times ... Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona) is doing it RIGHT!!:
He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights. Cut off all but "G" movies.
He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.
He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel. When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.
He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value. When the inmates complained, he told them.....this is a good one......"This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."
He bought Newt Gingrich' lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.
You have to love this guy!!
More on the AZ Sheriff.
[at this point, the text quoted above in our Example section is repeated] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I especially like this part:
"This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's even hotter than usual in Phoenix, the Associated Press reports:
About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.
On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before. Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their pink socks.
"It feels like you are in a furnace," said James Zanzo't, an inmate who has lived in the tents for 1 1/2 years. "It's inhumane."
Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, is not sympathetic. He said Wednesday that he told the inmates: "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths. " <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is the way he is, and he has been re-elected several times ... Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona) is doing it RIGHT!!:
He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights. Cut off all but "G" movies.
He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.
He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel. When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.
He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value. When the inmates complained, he told them.....this is a good one......"This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."
He bought Newt Gingrich' lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.
You have to love this guy!!
More on the AZ Sheriff.
[at this point, the text quoted above in our Example section is repeated] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I especially like this part:
"This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."
Comments
Honestly thats almost as bad as sticking them on an island and saying "Have fun" and seeing who lives after about 3 years =\
Honestly thats almost as bad as sticking them on an island and saying "Have fun" and seeing who lives after about 3 years =\ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-An awesome guy@ some time+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (An awesome guy@ some time)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
jail is supposed to be a deterrent and a punishment. This is a fairly old story (I remember reading about it like 5 years ago), and I think this guy is doing his job the way it's supposed to be done.
1) Rehab
2) Deterent
3) Revenge
og those 3 the 3rd one is wrong (it spawns more hatred, and is counter productive to the other 2)
of the first 2 Rehab dosn't actualy work for the most part.
Jail is a deterent. And it dosn't work. (Don't have #s, but you can find em)
This guy treats Jail as revenge, all that breads is hatred for 'the man' or 'the system' or 'society'.
Personaly, I would prefer to see effort be put into getting Jail as rehab (releasing them with some way to integrate with society in a productive manor. Thus lowering chance of relpasing).
If this guy could do this in a detached way I wouldn't mind it that much. Instead he obviously enjoys this. So, he has found a way around the law to torture people.....
who ho?
...
He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights. Cut off all but "G" movies.
He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.
He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel. When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.
He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value. When the inmates complained, he told them ... "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."
He bought Newt Gingrich' lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the inmates were in his jails in the first place. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Level of ownage:
<b>1,029,120%</b> out of a possible 100.
Seriously, all jails should be run like this guy runs his, and the crime rates would plummet. Put in proper social services and we'd have a paradise! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[and hey, atleast they get to go outside. In super-maxes (super-high security prisons) the people inside sit in their cell with nothing to do for 23 out of 24 hours.
Besides, i think the original purpose of prison was "to be so bad you'd never want to come back"]
Imho its deterant enough that your freedom is taken away, but to have such a man taking pleasure in my misfortune would breed in me a deep sense of hatred and rebellion, I would take it extremely personally and seek to repay the debt once outside.
Its definatly not the best way to rehabillitate people who have previously wronged.
I know if I served any length of time under this man, I would leave the jail with the express desire to avoid committing any crime that would put me back in county jail <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Actually judges who give sentences (at least in Canada) do so with #3 in mind. Of course they don't call it revenge, but rather "social justice" or something of the other.
Yes, revenge is a reason for punishment, however it is a very BAD reason.
All it does is make the inmate resentful of the system.
Oh, and why deterents don't wrok:
NO ONE thinks they are gona get caught!
NO ONE thinks they are gona get caught! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Neither does rehabilitation. I guess that just leaves punishment then?
And that seems to have been widely estabilished that this is a "bad" reason that causes "resentment of the system."
Perhaps we should stop locking people up until we figure out clear objectives <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Some places do release convicts with a trade skill and some where to go get a job, not to many though.
Thats what I would like to see.
Oh, and any one that thinks I am a 'bleeding hart liberal who wants to baby convicts' needs to think again.
Curent criminal Justice sentances do not lower crime that well (they do to some degree, but not to what they should).
One of the primary problems is that once a convict is released, they don't have anything to fall back to.
Most have no savings, a life of crime doth not lead to that.
I actualy know some one who was convicted of Atempted murder (co worker), he was also a drug dealer. He came out of 15yrs with nothing. (all his $$ went to defending him self).
He now works for around $7.50/hr as a stock clerk, and thinks that he is lucky. (the guy is in his upper 30s)
That isn't a good thing.
I really, really want to respond to that but I think I'd get in more trouble than usual
Fact: Federally run prsions are often used as tax breaks for states and funnel goverment granted funds to innapropriate places.
Fact: Most of America's prisons are overcrowded and people are in them for too long. You can be sentanced two years and have it extended to thirty for bad behavior and fighting.
Fact: Prison violence stems from people being put into a very tense situation and general frustration. There is absolutly nothing to do in prison, combine bordeom with abuse and you'll get a lot more inmate violence.
Fact: The three strikes can sometimes mix violent and non violent offenders in Federal Penns.
So he is torturing potentially violent criminals in an enviroment that breeds violent behavior and could potentially lead to death of an inmate or an extended prison sentance? Wow how cool is he.
There was a maximum security prison recently that installed flat screen TVs in every cell, and everyone was crying how they were babying murderers and rapists. The result? Violence in the prison went down dramatically because the convicts actually stayed in their damn cells.
Give them Playboy and HBO I gurantee you there's going to be an 80% upswing of early releases on good behavior.
You are getting wise in your old age <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Give them Playboy and HBO I gurantee you there's going to be an 80% upswing of early releases on good behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
violence in the jails? plummet probably.
violence to return to jail? skyrocket.
There's a give and take balance between the frustration and tense situation <i>in</i> jail, and the desire to return <i>to</i> jail. There are thousands of inmates a year who are repeat offenders. Give them christmas in july, and you'll get hundreds of little kids huddled around the christmas tree.
Even Immanuel Kant, whose categorical imperative--that states “the categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to another end”--is used by many deontological (means-based, rather than ends-based reasoning) philosophers to impugn actions such as Arpaio's, was a moral consequentialist. He supported capital punishment for crimes. One would say that execution, in and of itself under the categorical imperative (regardless of the lives it saves or crimes it prevents), would be <i>a priori</i> wrong. Yet, the man could see the value of it--just as Arpaio sees the value of what many lace-panty Americans would consider "too harsh" and "counterproductive."
Prison is not rehabilitation, it is pennance. Rehab is where they wean you off of drugs, alcohol, abusive behavior, and sometimes psychosis--prison is where they send you for violating the laws of society, and it's not there to mend fences, it is there for punshiment. Just as fighting with your siblings got you 'grounded' or in 'time out,' prison is society's version of 'time out' for those who violate its laws--it's not there to give them toys and other goodies with which to pass the time.
An acclimation to prison lifestyle, and a yearning for its structured ways, is not rare in many long-term inmates. It's somewhat akin to Stockholm syndrome in long-term hostages or kidnapping victims--NOT that I consider prisoners either victims or hostages--in that those who are forced into a strict, authoritarian lifestyle eventually come to accept it, and when removed from it, yearn for it. Adding incentives (i.e., HBO or PlayboyTV) that would make them yearn to be back in prison (where the TAXPAYERS would pay for <i>their</i> premium channels) would be societally irresponsible and morally bankrupt. There's only one way to get into prison, and I'm fairly certain asking someone to send you there is <i>not</i> the way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fact: Most of America's prisons are overcrowded and people are in them for too long. You can be sentanced two years and have it extended to thirty for bad behavior and fighting.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And they can cut their time by almost 70% for GOOD behavior. There IS an incentive to behave yourself. Personally I think good behavior is a crock of horse manure. You mean, if some guy gets Murder in the 2nd Degree, and he behaves himself in JAIL where he SERVES TIME FOR KILLING SOMEONE, he should be able to serve only one-third of the time the state gives him--especially when the statistics favor him REPEATING his crime? That makes a metric ton of sense.
I agree with your points for the most part, making prison a haven is NOT the way to go about it. Although prison can be primarily viewed as punishment it does have a role in rehab as well.
Perhaps using a reward system would help. Example, if you behave yourself and dont go against the rules etc, you get perks, (TV, extra smokes, premium meals, air conditioning etc) and if you mess up you get those perks removed.
Rewarding good behaviour in prison should at least have the same priority as punishing bad behaviour, at least then some form of conditioning can be at work <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It would be hard to convince someone of that if they've been tortured by that same system. Crime will always happen, humans are too nasty not to commit crimes and most people do it not even caring about the consequences or sure that <i>they</i> wont get caught.
Making jails worse won't stop crime, it will just mean that the people who come out will have even more trouble fitting back in to society.
I agree that the justice system (in any country) needs work but concentration camps won't help. Whats next, gas chambers?
People will only stop breaking the law when they accept the laws, when they feel accepted by the society they are in.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3659931.stm' target='_blank'>Link</a>
So this guy has been set to jail for robbery, assault and abduction and when he has to use a bucket as a loo for 2weeks he cant handel it and finds it degrading?
Im sure i could find many more of these where people that are in jail complain that there "accommodation" is not good enough for them and yes cases where people have been made fun of by other inmates because of there crimes say they cant take all the presure and sue.
One of my ex-friends is in jail and will be for the next 4years for attempted murder. I have spoken to his brother and he is loving it in jail, 3 Hot meals a day with plenty of choice, gets to play football(socer) or basketball everyday, gets a Playstation 2/TV in his room and he gets allowance each weeks for other things he wants. I mean how can this make people not want to commit crimes?
In the future jails will end up like holiday camps with the only diffrence being the lights are turned off at 10:00pm
Yes, they get 3 meals a day, time out side, and Cable. they don't get video games, the living conditions are NOT good.
Even a minimum secruity prision is not 'fun'
I work with some one who was convicted on attempted murder, trust me the prisons are not a good place to be.
As fpr the lack of plumbing. Well that can cause Disease, and there for is not something that should be tolerated.
2 Notes:
1) The guys name is Napier, cmon, who recognizes it?
2) Napier actualy stated that the $$ should be going to fixing the prisons, not to him.
OK, I'm going to seperate my post into two parts, one moralic, one utilitarian, so those of you who think I'm a tree-hugging hippy can skip the first few paragraphs.
--
One of the in my opinion most viable ways of assessing a societies value is to see how it treats its weakest members. The poor, the old, the crippled - no direct profit can be derived from them, and thus, the society oblivious of human dignity will reveal this here far before anywhere else.
Prisoners are, by the very definition of the word 'prison', the weakest beings in a society. Their free movement is seriously impaired to the point of non-existence, they are at the mercy of a system they have no, or only highly indirect influence in - as Mr. Arpiao demonstrates -; however they came into the situation, while they are in it, they are at their society's complete mercy. And how do we treat them?
If we decide to excert revenge on them, and this is, as many of Arpiaos supporters will freely admit, the first intention behind 'harsh prosecution', what does that tell us about ourselves? It tells us, first, that we consider ourselves vested with the authority to excert revenge, 'revenge' meaning the infliction of injustice on a person in an amount comparable to the injustice that person exserted on someone else. In other words, it means that we consider ourselves, collectively, in the right to do things which we'd be willing to imprison an individual for.
Second, it tells us that we are certain of our courts decisions, for if we are <i>not</i>, how can we bear the burden of inflicting injustice on potentially innocents?
Third, it tells us that we believe a persons dignity, the cornerstone of the human rights our all nations are based upon, to be alienable. If Mr. Arpiao considered it an inalienable right, if he believed that his inmates had lost the right to their dignity by what they did, then how could he decide to launch programs that aimed on hurting their self-esteem?
Looking in that mirror, I have to resent the society that spawned Mr. Arpiaos prison.
--
Now I told you why I think that a prison must not look like what Burn considers the right way to do it. What do I, then, think a prison has to look like?
First, let's realize what a prison can, and what it can not be.
To make it short, it can not be a widely effective deterrant, no matter how it may be led. As a prove, and I'd highly appreciate if everyone took this as an example and not an incentive to begin a discussion on capital punishment, consider that the relative amount of capital crimes is comparable between states executing capital punishment, and states which don't.
To expand upon Thansals point, most 'traditional' criminals - thieves, robbers, murderers - commit their crimes out of an impulse, not out of reasoning. The images of the 'professional bankrobbers', of the 'calm killer', are media figures spawned from so few real counterparts that interested laymen will be able to familiarize themselves with all such cases. In reality, a thief considers becoming a thief because an opportunity offers itself, and already became one long before he could have reflected upon possible cost and benefit. Most murders happen in the heat of the moment, ironically mostly out of a simple motivation: Revenge.
These people will not be deterred by a possible extremely hard punishment.
As for repeated offenders - you don't become one because of prison, you become one because of your environment. This is not to say that I'm trying to defend notorious criminals here, even <i>if</i> cursed with a bad family, a youth in a ghetto, and the wrong friends, how to earn your money is still your choice. But those who made the wrong decision won't get back into their old behaviours because of what they did or did not do or what was or was not done to them in jail, but because of where they go after having served their punishment. And in rare, cherished cases, one might be able to use the gained distance of his or her stay in prison to change the environment, independently from how the conditions of prison are:
There will always be those who want to change their life, and given enough encouragement and support, they might make it.
There will always be those who might be persuaded into trying to change their ways - and one should not frustrate them.
There will always be those who will return to a life of crime, and one will not be able to change them.
No prison system on Earth can change this, one can only try to make the best off it, which I think is obvious Mr. Arpiao does not.
So, prison can not deter crime. What is left? Detention.
A prison's only truly feasible purpose is to seperate potentially dangerous individuals from society. And if you have reached that point, it makes no sense to treat the inmates badly - they are already in a hellishly difficult situation, being in a strongly concentrated group of at least partly highly aggressive individuals; it makes no sense to further complicate it.
Prison will always - always - be a burden on people. Sure, Rue's friend's brother will feel like on paid vacation - for the first few weeks. Then, he will feel like going for a long walk, visiting friends, or even just seeing someone different - which won't be possible. And then, four more weeks later, after the first loud arguments with cellmates, after having realized how little space really is at his disposal, and after having felt how mind-numbingly mean a torture boredom really can be, he'll thank god for those sports, for the PS2 and his TV, because that will be what'll keep him from committing further violent offenses on that guy two cells apart who gave him the queer eye out of a sheer lack of alternative activities.
I guess there's still more to be said, but since you wouldn't be willing to read it, anyway, I'll just leave it here.
What about the 8 year old girl who has to spend the next 70-80 years with the image of some piece of ****'s **** being rubbed over her body because he had an impulse?
What about the woman who no longer has a face because some habitual drunk driver chose to have one more for the road?
What about the mother who has to stare longingly at her son's photo because he was gunned down on the street after making a left turn instead of a right?
These criminals made choices. The wrong choices. And now it's society's responsibilty to their own safety to remove the individuals who made the wrong choices. Without doing any research I'll say that prisons have existed as long as there have been civilized societies. And yes, rehabilitation and deterence haven't prevented current criminals from acting on their "impulses". From a statistical standpoint I suppose it would be difficult to determine just how influential the deterence aspect really is.
But, if detention is the real reason prisons exist, then why do we let criminals free after a period of time? Could it be that we're hoping they'll make a different choice the next time an "opportunity" arises?
As far as this prison is concerned, I've seen a number of documentaries from various news shows based on this tent city. As I recall, there are just as many inmates who complain about the conditions as there are appreciative of the up-front and respectful way that Arpiaos treats them. With all the publicity that this sherrif received a few years ago, any human rights violations would have been spotted and decried long ago. One thing I am sure of though, the inmates there will have a very hard time finding living conditions out in society that would make them think returning to prison "wouldn't be so bad". As a free, law-abiding, taxpaying citizen, I give a big thumbs up.
Most people don't want revenge.
I wish I had all the papers my Crim Justice prof gave me so I could quote sources to you.
Most people find that the incarceration or killing of the agressor dosn't help them any (especialy in capital punishment cases).
No amount of $$, 'revenge', or anything can bring back any of those things (well, ok, recunstructive surgey could help the MVA victim), and most people eventualy realise that.
However as Nem said, I will get off of Capital Punishment.
However, I still go against Nem (slightly).
Detention is not the ONLY reason for prison.
Rehabilitation into society SHOULD be part of the reason.
2 of Nems convicts (he who wants to change, and he who is willing to) would greatly benefit from some sort of reintegration in to Society
Instead we often dump them out side the gates with a one ride MetroCard (this is the case for a Juvinile prison in NYC)
I know some one who works with homeless kids, and juvinile excons, however her organisation is a nonprofit, nongovn't sponsered org. Why don't we have people like her IN the prisions, finding these people ways to become constructive members of the comunity instead of a drain on taxpayer $$?
As for rehabilitation, I'll back some for non-violent criminals and such but I'm a bigger proponent of programs, morals, and values that intercept criminals before they reach the point of no return. Improving their environment if you prefer.
I disagree. They are not the weakest beings in a society. They may have the fewest freedoms, but that does not mean they are weak. They are not being preyed upon, they are only having another's authority ( i.e. the government, law, etc... ) forced upon them because of their own choice(s) to not recognize or to ignore that authority. This does not equate to being weak though.
You mentioned this later on, but I'll mention it now. One main point of prison is separation. You remove those who cannot abide by the law from those who can, with the intent to make it safer for society as a whole.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->however they came into the situation, while they are in it, they are at their society's complete mercy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How they came into the situation is of the utmost importance. It is a highly determining factor in how they are treated ( i.e. maximum or minimum security prison... cell block or solitairy confinement... ).
Saying they are at society's mercy is somewhat dramatic. Probably too dramatic. As I said above, they are having another's authority forced upon them ( forced because they, in the majority of circumstances, prefer NOT to go to prison ), but there is the expectation that they would be well cared for.
What does well cared for entail? Preferrably the bare minimums. They are not there for a vacation. Give them a cheap bed, some sheets and blankets, 3 meals a day, the ability to stay sanitary and then some moderate exercise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If we decide to excert revenge on them, and this is, as many of Arpiaos supporters will freely admit, the first intention behind 'harsh prosecution',<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure about it being the first intention... Probably "AN" intention, but not necessarily the first. For the vast majority of crimes, the "traditional" crimes as you call them, I'd say the first and overriding intention is justice. Justice basically means punishment for breaking the law. "Harsh prosecution" doesn't automatically equate to revenge, it could mean there are exacerbating circumstances or that a zealot of a prosecutor was chosen.
If it were not a "traditional" crime, then chances are revenge is presence is a much larger capacity; but our judicial system gives very little weight to such feelings. It does give weight to the circumstances of the crime and the intent and actual actions of the accused, or even the crime itself. That is usually what decides punishment... Not revenge ( now, capital punishment is a different area and I'm not trying to include that here as that could have more elements of revenge that most other crimes, but then again I'd be tempted to argue that cap. punishment is nonetheless acceptable ).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It tells us, first, that we consider ourselves vested with the authority to excert revenge, 'revenge' meaning the infliction of injustice on a person in an amount comparable to the injustice that person exserted on someone else.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really do think you're taking the revenge thing too far. This may have something to do with our differing cultures and countries of origin, but revenge does not have as much influence as you're attributing to it.
Our judicial systems do have the ability to excert punishment, but this does not automatically equate to revenge; and the idea is that the punishment would be a deterant. Revenge would be an injustice, but our courts do not traditionally use revenge.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In other words, it means that we consider ourselves, collectively, in the right to do things which we'd be willing to imprison an individual for.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know I broke these two quotes up... But I'm interested here... Such as?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second, it tells us that we are certain of our courts decisions, for if we are <i>not</i>, how can we bear the burden of inflicting injustice on potentially innocents?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would be a huge injustice were we to punish an innocent, but that is why there is the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and trial by your peers. Along the same lines though, it would be an injustice to the society if we did not attempt to prosecute out of fear of being wrong.
So what must be done, and which prosecutors usually try to do, is gather enough evidence to go to court. Should they not have enough evidence that they believe could be used to try and convict an individual, then they usually do not take them to court ( I'm leaving media trials out of this as they are a whole other animal and a disgrace imo ).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Third, it tells us that we believe a persons dignity, the cornerstone of the human rights our all nations are based upon, to be alienable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Prison itself witholds the inalienable right of freedom from individuals, not unjustly, but as a direct result of actions by those individuals ( assuming they're guilty ). When one disobeys the laws and is sentenced to prison, they have forfeited certain rights that we consider unalienable within society. One of those is freedom... But prisons themselves show that freedom is only an inalienable right for those who obey the laws of civilized society.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If Mr. Arpiao considered it an inalienable right, if he believed that his inmates had lost the right to their dignity by what they did, then how could he decide to launch programs that aimed on hurting their self-esteem?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Negative reinforcement. It actually can work... Then again, it could also have consequences when it does not work. For those that are in prison, they have already proven that positive reinforcement does not work that well for them,so what else is there? Often times, one of the best forms of punishment is humiliation ( e.g. wearing pink... More a societal humiliation than anything truly bad ). Another is to remove from their grasp something wanted, but not needed ( e.g. pronos, cigarettes, etc... ).
Something being uncomfortable does not mean it is inhumane ( the US constitution does not promise happiness, only the pursuit of happiness ). It does not appear they are in any danger and they are cared for at a minimal level. So it is not a picnic... That is the way punishment is supposed to be.
Then there is the chain gang program. Something else that isn't necessarily inhumane. They are working to "repay their debt to society" ( how often have we heard that? ). As cliche as it may sound, its not far from the truth. They are being housed and fed and cared for by the government ( i.e. society ). Why should they not be made to do some public service work ( here in N.C. we have prisoners who help to clean up the roads )?
As someone else has already stated... This would make me NOT want to commit any more crimes, but that is also coming from someone who's only visited a prison as a tourist and has a non-existent criminal record.
Now, with all of that said I do believe society should make an effort to help convicts upon their release. Society must follow through with the judicial system and not just toss them away to be forgotten about. Criminals are our problem and so we must help them get past their criminal ways. Show them how to do more than rob a bank. Show them how to live and interact with the rest of civilized society. Get them a job after they get out... It doesn't have to be well paying, it just has to be a job that they can do. We need to give them good choices. Our judicial system should not forget about people after they have served their time, it should be helping to ensure they do not serve any more time.
What about the 8 year old girl who has to spend the next 70-80 years with the image of some piece of ****'s **** being rubbed over her body because he had an impulse?
What about the woman who no longer has a face because some habitual drunk driver chose to have one more for the road?
What about the mother who has to stare longingly at her son's photo because he was gunned down on the street after making a left turn instead of a right? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thansal already made a major point, but let's play devil's advocate for a second and assume that these victims will demand revenge for their actions.
In that case, one has to ask oneself what rights a victim really has.
And it is perfectly obvious to me why a victim has a right for societies care and a meterial reimbursement as far as it is possible. I can easily see why a criminal's victim has a right to sleep safe in the knowledge that this criminal will not come back for them.
I can not see why a victim, all said and done as much or little a human as the criminal, would have a right to demand what amounts to a crime to be carried out on another human being for no other reason than a (dubious) sense of comfort. If a human decides to lower him- or herself to the level of those who commited a wrong against him or her, it is the society's obligation to keep them from doing so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->These criminals made choices. The wrong choices. And now it's society's responsibilty to their own safety to remove the individuals who made the wrong choices. Without doing any research I'll say that prisons have existed as long as there have been civilized societies. And yes, rehabilitation and deterence haven't prevented current criminals from acting on their "impulses". From a statistical standpoint I suppose it would be difficult to determine just how influential the deterence aspect really is.
But, if detention is the real reason prisons exist, then why do we let criminals free after a period of time? Could it be that we're hoping they'll make a different choice the next time an "opportunity" arises?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your point might be lost with me since I do advocate preventive detention of pathological offenders, but generally, it is reasoned that a potential crime is either in no relation to the impact an infinitely extended detention would pose - would you decide to keep a pickpocket in unended custody because he might grab for another handbag? The other alternative is that many crimes, murder being a prime example, will usually see their motivation 'cooling off' over time. A convict for attempted murder might boil for revenge by the time he goes into prison - but half a decade later, that hatred will have necessarily been replaced by a certain apathy. The danger will not be there anymore, or will at least be reduced to 'manageable' levels.
It is of course true that everyone involved with the judicidal process will hope that an offender 'learns his lesson', and I admitted to that possibility on numerous occasions. I was just trying to point out that the amount of people who learned said lesson is not so much dependent on their prison's conditions, but the relative inmates inclination.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as this prison is concerned, I've seen a number of documentaries from various news shows based on this tent city. As I recall, there are just as many inmates who complain about the conditions as there are appreciative of the up-front and respectful way that Arpiaos treats them. With all the publicity that this sherrif received a few years ago, any human rights violations would have been spotted and decried long ago.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, they were - <a href='http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR510511997' target='_blank'>here's an example</a> - a search on Amnesty's site shows various other hits, some from before, some from after '97.
--
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Detention is not the ONLY reason for prison.
Rehabilitation into society SHOULD be part of the reason.
2 of Nems convicts (he who wants to change, and he who is willing to) would greatly benefit from some sort of reintegration in to Society
Instead we often dump them out side the gates with a one ride MetroCard (this is the case for a Juvinile prison in NYC)
I know some one who works with homeless kids, and juvinile excons, however her organisation is a nonprofit, nongovn't sponsered org. Why don't we have people like her IN the prisions, finding these people ways to become constructive members of the comunity instead of a drain on taxpayer $$?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, social workers <i>do</i> work in (German) prisons - my mother happens to have started out as one.
And I agree with you, rehabilitation has to be tried - my points was, as I said in the reply to Spooge, not that rehab is impossible, but that the amount of people willing to try it is fundamentally independent from the prison they are being put into. To illustrate:
My mother is currently working on a treatment station for sexual and violent offenders. Among both groups are people willing to change, which means that she and the state are willing to invest money and effort into helping them along the way. When she was, on the other hand, faced with a member of a large criminal organization a while back, she did not try, because that man did not intend to leave the criminal millieu.
[edit]Just saw anon's post. Sorry, but that's too much to reply to right now. Later.[/edit]
Proof that NZ doesn't "troll" ( meant via definition #2 on dictionary.com ) the forums all day long!
You mentioned this later on, but I'll mention it now. One main point of prison is separation. You remove those who cannot abide by the law from those who can, with the intent to make it safer for society as a whole.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In most cases a prisoner in a Fed. Penn. has less rights than a homeless illegal alien. They have no access to any form of support a free person in our society recieves so in terms of their enviroment they are the weakest of people. Now whether or not they are they are there by their own choice is a debatable point, they chose to commit a crime, but what lead to that choice isn't always clear. And they do get preyed on by other prisoners constantly.
Now as I mentioned earlier prisons are sold to the public as a means to make society safer and to rehabilate criminals (although this rarely if ever happens). In actuality they are run quite differently.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How they came into the situation is of the utmost importance. It is a highly determining factor in how they are treated ( i.e. maximum or minimum security prison... cell block or solitairy confinement... ).
Saying they are at society's mercy is somewhat dramatic. Probably too dramatic. As I said above, they are having another's authority forced upon them ( forced because they, in the majority of circumstances, prefer NOT to go to prison ), but there is the expectation that they would be well cared for.
What does well cared for entail? Preferrably the bare minimums. They are not there for a vacation. Give them a cheap bed, some sheets and blankets, 3 meals a day, the ability to stay sanitary and then some moderate exercise.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be honest sometimes where people are put simply comes down to how much room there is in a prison. Car theives are often times cell mates with murderers. This leads to a lot of problems, one of the most publicized ones is the fact that child abusers are often times the target of violence and abuse by other inmates, this is because the prison officials make no effort to keep this information from being disclosed and often times encourage it.
Being well cared for entails not having to worry about being murdered in prison. Whether this doesn't happen because they are under funded or callous is debateable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Negative reinforcement. It actually can work... Then again, it could also have consequences when it does not work. For those that are in prison, they have already proven that positive reinforcement does not work that well for them,so what else is there? Often times, one of the best forms of punishment is humiliation ( e.g. wearing pink... More a societal humiliation than anything truly bad ). Another is to remove from their grasp something wanted, but not needed ( e.g. pronos, cigarettes, etc... ).
Something being uncomfortable does not mean it is inhumane ( the US constitution does not promise happiness, only the pursuit of happiness ). It does not appear they are in any danger and they are cared for at a minimal level. So it is not a picnic... That is the way punishment is supposed to be.
Then there is the chain gang program. Something else that isn't necessarily inhumane. They are working to "repay their debt to society" ( how often have we heard that? ). As cliche as it may sound, its not far from the truth. They are being housed and fed and cared for by the government ( i.e. society ). Why should they not be made to do some public service work ( here in N.C. we have prisoners who help to clean up the roads )?
As someone else has already stated... This would make me NOT want to commit any more crimes, but that is also coming from someone who's only visited a prison as a tourist and has a non-existent criminal record<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is crime can not be detered this way. This programs are in place only to make funding for larger prisons possible, they do not serve a moral purpose. If a warden can say to his state "I can use 500 prisoners to build 200 miles of highway in three years." the state is likey to increase his funding. This is my main problem with the US prison system, like everything else in this country it is run as a money making business.
Now back to negative reinforcement as a deterent. When a crime is being commited whether the criminal has been to prison or not their mindset is not one of rationality. In most cases they are either trying to get money to score drugs or trying to pay off a drug dealer, bookie whatever. This become crimes of desperation and whether or not they are going to jail doesn't concern them. Now there ARE premediated murders and crimes, but unfortunatly our justice system doesn't really dabble in that grey area. Usually high profile cases are ones of premediations (OJ, Blake, etc.) and we all know how those go....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, with all of that said I do believe society should make an effort to help convicts upon their release. Society must follow through with the judicial system and not just toss them away to be forgotten about. Criminals are our problem and so we must help them get past their criminal ways. Show them how to do more than rob a bank. Show them how to live and interact with the rest of civilized society. Get them a job after they get out... It doesn't have to be well paying, it just has to be a job that they can do. We need to give them good choices. Our judicial system should not forget about people after they have served their time, it should be helping to ensure they do not serve any more time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed 100%
So what it boils down to for me is that whenever there is such large amounts of money to be made by the people running these prisons they will never be purely for the benefit of society. I've seen numerous effects of this with people being moved from county, to state, to federal simply because the prison ran out of room. People being moved from better run Fed. Penns. to ones not under such scrutinty because of new inmates (recently you'll probably remember the case of the man who starved to death in a prison because no one had the proper paper work for him). And I won't even get into capital punishment........
edit: Sorry I just grazed some of your points, I have the same problem as Nem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->