Morning inspection. Myself, and two supervisors.

We enter a cell block, of an inmate that was recently sentanced for 'a long while'...I.E.-he doesnt give a hoot about nuthin'.

He's wearing his jumper improperly, a minor infraction that is typically bypassed. I used to enforce this sort of thing 'till I realised that I was the only shift deputy that was going all "by the book" other deputies constantly overlooked it so I was almost fighting against them.

Not this morning, "those in charge" wish to make an issue out of it.

They tell him to put it on correctly, he refuses. Like I said, he doenst give a damn. They repeat themselves for about a full minute...he starts to get agitated and angry, continuing to refuse.

One of the supervisors loses his patience, and tells him to turn around on the wall. Things are getting more tense so I step forward more into the situation. I notice his grip on the T.V. remote...I'm thinking he might use it as a hand-load and try to cold-cock one of the supervisors with it. Supervisor is repeatedly telling the inmate to turn around, inmate is repeatedly refusing, getting cockier and cockier, he sees now that the deputies arent going to do anything....He has command of the situation, he's doing as he pleases because there are no repercussions.

I have to step into the situation IN FRONT OF MY SUPERVISORS, I reach for the remote and he pulls away from me, I grab the inmate's arm and restrain him in an arm lock, at this point my supervisors finally jump onto the inmate too and all three of us take him to the ground and slap the bracelets on.

After the whole situation one of my supervisors actually has the nerve to tell me that I need to be more visible to these guys so that they maintain proper dress code. I guess she felt she needed to get on my case a little bit since she was looking like an idiot and I had to step in to maintain some sense of authority.

.......................................

Basically, you cannot ask a gang member to do something over and over and expect him to comply if he's of a mind not to. You have to establish dominance by force. Political correctness and a fear of getting your hands dirty will not accomplish anything when you deal with these people.

Second, someone who has lots of time and is a perpetrator of a violent crime is actually one of your most quiet inmates and cause the least trouble....why roust them for something tiny and minor...unless you're trying to establish dominance or just pushing them around....in which case, again, you need to use force.

Least you didn't get hurt eh

..how does one wear a jumper improperly ?

I dunno, Put it on your legs for an MC Hammer type Parachute Pants look?

Top part of jumper worn normally...arms thru sleeves.

Unbuttoned however,and instead of stepping into it, the legs are wrapped around the waist and tied in the front.

I dont get it.

So basically it's a subtle way of the inmate to "stick it to the man". I.E. rebeliousness.

GG

Oh a jumpsuit !

Sorry, over here a jumper is just a top, I think you call them sweaters.

I was trying to imagine how you could wear that improperly..backwards was the best I could come up with.

You keep saying Deputy. Do you work at a county facility or a state pen? If it's a county place, why would you have a long-term prisoner, unless my understanding of the system is really wrong, I was under the impression that any sort of long-term prisoner goes to state-level correctional facilities, not the county lockup.

Or maybe that's just how it is in Illinois (or, I could even be wrong about that)

Redbeard wrote:You keep saying Deputy. Do you work at a county facility or a state pen? If it's a county place, why would you have a long-term prisoner, unless my understanding of the system is really wrong, I was under the impression that any sort of long-term prisoner goes to state-level correctional facilities, not the county lockup.

Or maybe that's just how it is in Illinois (or, I could even be wrong about that)

I am a city Deputy, working in the cities jail.
wh
The problem is overpopulation.

If an inmate is sentanced up to "365" days, they stay here. Once the sentence becomes "1 year" (yes I know they're the same, but for sentencing purposes...they're not) or higher they are supposed to be transported to the regional.

Due to overcrowding at the regional, long term inmates can stay in city lockup for up to 2-3 years, this is not uncommon, and the way I understand it, it sucks for the inmates as well.

I wont say here what the inmate has done or his actual sentence, but he's basically the equivalant of a "MS-13" ganger who has been sentanced for just over 50 years for murder. He's been here in the jail for about 2 years in a single "high profile" cell which is about 8' by 13' cell with a metal rack to sleep on (with a cushion) a toilet, a sink, a tv. He only comes out to shower. He's not going to regional anytime soon due to the overcrowdedness, so he'll stay put for an unknown amount of time, unfortunatly for him. His time would be easier (not that I really care, but still) at the regional.

....and my supervisors are hasseling him about dress code when I'm the only one that will see him all day...for all the sense THAT makes. If they wouldnt have given him a hard time, I would've likely not seen/heard from him any more than a "Good mornin' Dep" when I pass out his noon meal tray. Like I said, if you leave them alone, the serious offenders are the easiest ones to get along with.

The overcrowding in prisons is insane. But no one will take a stand on it. No politician gets re-elected by being pro-prison-reform, they get re-elected by being "Tough on Crime", which just adds to the problem.

California is running the risk of being forced, by the Supreme Court, of having to let a ton of inmates out early because the overcrowding is so bad it constitutes "Cruel and Unusual" punishment. (Although, if they're all overcrowded, I don't see how it's unusual.)

We need to find a new continent to ship all of them too...

I hear Australia has better gun laws than the U.S.

That might make it a good place to send our criminals who have committed gun crimes. I doubt they'd cause any trouble there, since the gun laws are better.

Hordini wrote:I hear Australia has better gun laws than the U.S.

That might make it a good place to send our criminals who have committed gun crimes. I doubt they'd cause any trouble there, since the gun laws are better.

There's stacks of room in the middle. It's a growth industry.

Deadshane1 wrote:Morning inspection. Myself, and two supervisors.

We enter a cell block, of an inmate that was recently sentanced for 'a long while'...I.E.-he doesnt give a hoot about nuthin'.

He's wearing his jumper improperly, a minor infraction that is typically bypassed. I used to enforce this sort of thing 'till I realised that I was the only shift deputy that was going all "by the book" other deputies constantly overlooked it so I was almost fighting against them.

Not this morning, "those in charge" wish to make an issue out of it.

They tell him to put it on correctly, he refuses. Like I said, he doenst give a damn. They repeat themselves for about a full minute...he starts to get agitated and angry, continuing to refuse.

One of the supervisors loses his patience, and tells him to turn around on the wall. Things are getting more tense so I step forward more into the situation. I notice his grip on the T.V. remote...I'm thinking he might use it as a hand-load and try to cold-cock one of the supervisors with it. Supervisor is repeatedly telling the inmate to turn around, inmate is repeatedly refusing, getting cockier and cockier, he sees now that the deputies arent going to do anything....He has command of the situation, he's doing as he pleases because there are no repercussions.

I have to step into the situation IN FRONT OF MY SUPERVISORS, I reach for the remote and he pulls away from me, I grab the inmate's arm and restrain him in an arm lock, at this point my supervisors finally jump onto the inmate too and all three of us take him to the ground and slap the bracelets on.

After the whole situation one of my supervisors actually has the nerve to tell me that I need to be more visible to these guys so that they maintain proper dress code. I guess she felt she needed to get on my case a little bit since she was looking like an idiot and I had to step in to maintain some sense of authority.

.......................................

Basically, you cannot ask a gang member to do something over and over and expect him to comply if he's of a mind not to. You have to establish dominance by force. Political correctness and a fear of getting your hands dirty will not accomplish anything when you deal with these people.

Second, someone who has lots of time and is a perpetrator of a violent crime is actually one of your most quiet inmates and cause the least trouble....why roust them for something tiny and minor...unless you're trying to establish dominance or just pushing them around....in which case, again, you need to use force.

Reason one on why we never should have otten rid of chain gangs. A tired, worn out inmate is a compliant inmate.

I'm not sure how this has to do with political correctness. It sounds like your supervisors just got cushy with their authority and forgot how to properly to their job.

"Inmate please do this...."
"Inmate please do this...."
"Inmate please do this...."
"Inmate please do this...."
"Inmate please do this...."
"Inmate please do this...."

Why? Because the upper eschelon is afraid to deal with complaints from inmates and inmates' families. They're trying to be PC in that they're trying to treat the animals as civilised people that logically follow instructions.

The best way to handle it would be...

"Inmate, do this....now....*THUMP*...NOW do it, thank you for complying."

However, thats a little harsh for some people.

Deadshane1 wrote:"Inmate please do this...."
"Inmate please do this...."
"Inmate please do this...."
"Inmate please do this...."
"Inmate please do this...."
"Inmate please do this...."

Why? Because the upper eschelon is afraid to deal with complaints from inmates and inmates' families. They're trying to be PC in that they're trying to treat the animals as civilised people that logically follow instructions.

The best way to handle it would be...

"Inmate, do this....now....*THUMP*...NOW do it, thank you for complying."

However, thats a little harsh for some people.

Dude, I agree totally. Everyone today that is a higher up in any corporation is so afraid of getting sued that they won't be tough anymore.
Besides, prisoners revoke all rights to the word "please" when they commit the crime.

Frazzled wrote:
Reason one on why we never should have otten rid of chain gangs. A tired, worn out inmate is a compliant inmate.

Or given them air conditioning or heating (beyond that necessary to sustain life). It's apparent that providing or denying criminals these things doesn't deter crime. (Have a look at 'Tent City' here in Phoenix: http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/ ), so why bother to continue to pay for them?

Here you go Deadshane, you can campaign to have O'l SHerrif Joe hired on as a consultant!

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/miracopjail.htm

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's 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:
With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record), 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 we are in a furnace," said James Zanzot, 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, and eat bologna sandwiches, is
not one bit sympathetic He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and
they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes... so shut your damned mouths."

I think it'd be fair to at least say please the first time you talk to them.

If they ignore you when you say please there's obviously no point in bothering. I'm guessing most people in prison would fit in this category.

I love Sheriff Joe.

Nah its fair not to taser them the first time you talk to them. After that...meh.

Frazzled wrote:Reason one on why we never should have otten rid of chain gangs. A tired, worn out inmate is a compliant inmate.

Frazz you get to go to level 20 for that comment congrats.

GG

there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails.

God dammit America.

My house didn't even have cable.

As a kid, I remember having a black and white TV. If you could still buy black and white TVs, I'm sure that's what Sheriff Joe would get.

Meh, from the guards and ex-inmates that I've spoken to mutual respect gets the best results.
When a guard, super or inmate is pushing to show, you get issues.
From what I've heard the supers end up stirring up more crap than most, and they tend to be the most detached from the population.
Your super was technically in the 'right', but was directly breaking what keeps the peace.
For what, to throw his weight?
Was the inmate trouble before, because if he didn't have a beef before, he does now. Just a little one.
Like marriages the little things are what matter.
and in those twisted little relationships it the guards and inmates that suffer, not the supers

Yeah, saying please isn't PC, it's politeness. PC has quite a specific meaning.

I think all inmate problems would be solved if they were forced to wear Snuggys.

Nobody looks tough in a Snuggy.

Or pink bunny suits, complete with white puffy ears.


Of course that would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Belphegor wrote:Meh, from the guards and ex-inmates that I've spoken to mutual respect gets the best results.

Respect is earned, not given.

I'll treat you fairly, but if you're in jail for sticking objects into a 9 year old's "privates"...I dont respect you. I'm sort of weird like that.

On the other hand if that same inmate treats me with respect as a uniformed deputy sheriff, doesnt make trouble, and generally follows instructions, I have no problem going out of my way to see that he gets a phone call, gets a new jumper if theirs is unsatisfactory, gets forms they need or whatever. If you act an a$$, chances are I'll either "forget" or just ignore you.

Deadshane1: Respect is earned, not given.

Agreed, of coarse this goes both ways. You can't enforce respect.
If you try to enforce 'respect' it just becomes a waiting game of who tires first and falters.

Deadshane1: I'll treat you fairly, but if you're in jail for sticking objects into a 9 year old's "privates"...I dont respect you.

No doubt.
I'm not talking about liking the person, nor admiring them.
It's the kind of respect you give to someone that's on the other side. An enemy.

Interment areas are always a powder keg, wrapped in fuses.
It's a giant pain, and no one is happy.
Almost all of the responsibility is put on the guards.
It takes a level head to be in that position and do it well.

If the super had a problem with dress code enforcement, he should have talked to the responsible guard away from the population.
Not directly to the prisoner.
It makes the super look weak and it makes the chain of command look weak.
The conflict could have been avoided.

With aggressive people with nothing to lose, the person giving the command needs to have his own muscle.
As opposed to have the muscle bellow him making the call, without a direct order.

Just to be clear. I'm not saying you made a bad call, I'm say your super did.
It's sucks and I'm sorry you have to deal with that.

Belphegor wrote:

Deadshane1: Respect is earned, not given.

Agreed, of coarse this goes both ways. You can't enforce respect.
If you try to enforce 'respect' it just becomes a waiting game of who tires first and falters.

Deadshane1: I'll treat you fairly, but if you're in jail for sticking objects into a 9 year old's "privates"...I dont respect you.

No doubt.
I'm not talking about liking the person, nor admiring them.
It's the kind of respect you give to someone that's on the other side. An enemy.

I forgot to mention, I dont need/want respect from inmates either. What I need/want is compliance.

You break the law, you wind up here. I'm in charge. THAT is jail. Honestly, respect really doesnt even need to come into it.

If the super had a problem with dress code enforcement, he should have talked to the responsible guard away from the population.
Not directly to the prisoner.
It makes the super look weak and it makes the chain of command look weak.
The conflict could have been avoided.

this was in a single man cell.

Just to be clear. I'm not saying you made a bad call, I'm say your super did.
It's sucks and I'm sorry you have to deal with that.

Oh, I TOTALLY agree with that.

Deadshane1: I forgot to mention, I dont need/want respect from inmates either. What I need/want is compliance.
You break the law, you wind up here. I'm in charge. THAT is jail. Honestly, respect really doesnt even need to come into it.

That compliance is the respect I'm talking about.
One of the ways you show respect is by not arbitrarily beating inmates, or not allowing inmates to harm each other and but helping compliant inmates with what they need.
It seems that respect is pretty integral, but we may be using the same language at cross purposes.

Deadshane1: this was in a single man cell.

That's what I'm saying, there was a prisoner present.

I'm not saying you should, but who would you report to if you had a problem with a super?

Belphegor wrote:

Deadshane1: I forgot to mention, I dont need/want respect from inmates either. What I need/want is compliance.
You break the law, you wind up here. I'm in charge. THAT is jail. Honestly, respect really doesnt even need to come into it.

That compliance is the respect I'm talking about.

Compliance may be a "form" of respect, but when you're in jail, you are REQUIRED to give that form of respect regardless of the demeanor of the Deputy instructing you to comply.

You see, when you give up your right to be free, and come to jail, you WILL comply one way or the other. THAT form of respect CAN be forced out of you. Personally, I dont think its forced enough, and THAT is the cause of the rebellious nature in THIS jail as opposed to other jails.

One of the ways you show respect is by not arbitrarily beating inmates,

obviously, that in and of itself would be against the law.

or not allowing inmates to harm each other

a safety issue and this too falls within my responsibilities.

but helping compliant inmates with what they need.

If by 'need' you mean meals and a safe environment to be incarcerated within, then yes. I have no responsibilities to inmates needs other than that. Anything else I provide them with is pure gravy. Notes from family, visitation, tv, phone, blank legal forms, availiability of snacks, GRAVY. If you WANT it, then you're at my mercy, you'd be smart not to be a jerk...and that doesnt require me to do the same. If I wanted to, I could be all the jerk I want (not that I am, but....) you're still not getting television, you see, I control the switch.

I say that all criminals forfeit all rights, including "basic human rights". They should be beaten when disorderly, forced to do long, hard, back-breaking work, and denied meals when being punished. And they should be forced to grow their own food.

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:I say that all criminals forfeit all rights, including "basic human rights".

I think the US constitution disagrees with you.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:I say that all criminals forfeit all rights, including "basic human rights".

I think the US constitution disagrees with you.

True, but they don't need tv.

Yes they do

AND CABLE THE COURTS EVIDENTLY DECLARE

OverbossGhurzubMoga: I say that all criminals forfeit all rights, including "basic human rights". They should be beaten when disorderly, forced to do long, hard, back-breaking work, and denied meals when being punished. And they should be forced to grow their own food.

hmmm, I hope you don't have any stolen Mp3s, or never have to much to drink publicly.
I guess it's easy, for honest hard working trolls like yourself.
heh, why don't you move to Turkey, they have your style of justice. (except they would give you any land to grow food.)
(obvious troll has an obvious)

mcfly: True, but they don't need tv.

Well how else would you stop them from working out?
How about we give an angry person time do nothing but become more angry and stronger.
and cut them off from contact with others so they get kinda crazy...
It's like asking a windup spark toy, not to spark and not to walk when its key is turned. It just gets all broken.

It's a lame system from all angles. Unless your fishing for tax dollars

Frazzled wrote:Or pink bunny suits, complete with white puffy ears.

Actually this may not be bad idea, there were some studies done that show the color pink(as opposed to red) tends to create more passivity in inmates. So some prisons painted their walls pink. Just think about it, if all inmates were forced to wear pink bunny outfits, do you think they would be more inclined to fight each other?


GG

I probably would be.

generalgrog: if all inmates were forced to wear pink bunny outfits, do you think they would be more inclined to fight each other?

Pink button-downs with popped collars where (and are) in fashion with coke-head frat boys. They seem to like to fight and force themselves physically on others, so I'd have to say no to both more or less....

Though I bet the rate of strangulations would go up. (bunny ears ripped off and tied together, if math is hard)
I guess if your callous you could just force the prisoners to were diapers so there would be less mess.

Belphegor wrote:

mcfly: True, but they don't need tv.

Well how else would you stop them from working out?
How about we give an angry person time do nothing but become more angry and stronger.
and cut them off from contact with others so they get kinda crazy...
It's like asking a windup spark toy, not to spark and not to walk when its key is turned. It just gets all broken.

It's a lame system from all angles. Unless your fishing for tax dollars

Thats what the chain gangs are for. Fix the roads. Pick the cotton.

Depends on if you see prison as a place to rehabilitate people or a place to lock them away from everyone else and punish them, or a bit of both.

Deadshane: That situation sucks! I hate when managers and supervisors butt in and throw their weight around and wreck things through ignorance of the job they actually manage. Nothing worse. And in a dangerous job like yours, a bazillion times worse again. Respect for doing a difficult job.

No it doesn't. Lifting weights, watching TV, and going stir crazy is not rehabilitation. As our rehabiitation rates are brilliantly craptacular I'd posit whatever they're doin' ain't workin.

Oh I'm not saying what they're doing is working at all! It's obviously not. But I mean, theoretically, it could work. Maybe. Maybe not.

Belphegor wrote:

OverbossGhurzubMoga: I say that all criminals forfeit all rights, including "basic human rights". They should be beaten when disorderly, forced to do long, hard, back-breaking work, and denied meals when being punished. And they should be forced to grow their own food.

hmmm, I hope you don't have any stolen Mp3s, or never have to much to drink publicly.
I guess it's easy, for honest hard working trolls like yourself.
heh, why don't you move to Turkey, they have your style of justice. (except they would give you any land to grow food.)
(obvious troll has an obvious)

Sorry, I guess sarcasm/humor doesn't translate well into words lacking expressions.

I really do believe that convicted criminals forfeit most of their rights, like the freedom of speech and such. I also believe they should be forced to grow their own food. I'm tired of my tax dollars going to feed and house idiots who choose to break the laws.

hmmm, I hope you don't have any stolen Mp3s, or never have to much to drink publicly.

Every bit of music I have was purchased either from iTunes or bought as a CD. As far as the drinking publicly, I hate bars.

I see where you say that I am a troll and it does look that way. Sorry 'bout that. Was just trying a bit of humor.

I say that all criminals forfeit all rights, including "basic human rights". They should be beaten when disorderly, forced to do long, hard, back-breaking work, and denied meals when being punished. And they should be forced to grow their own food.

Prisons should be about rehabilitation not punishment. Creating a harsh environment with hundreds of convicts in one place doesn't reduce crime and doesn't reduce the chance of repeat offense once the criminals go free. Check repeat offense rates in south america, africa, or the eastern blok. The harsher less forgiving the jail, the more likely they are to form gangs, to become harsher and less forgiving people, and upon release the more likely and violent their repeat offenses. The lack of rehabilitation is one of the leading causes of prison overcrowding. The revolving door needs to be stopped.

Rehabilitation works better than harsh punishment. It's just less savory, it doesn't feel like they are being "punished".

Thats the broken part of the mindset.

All you are doing is turning them into what you think they are.

I'm not sure you can peg down increased repetition of criminal offenses in poverty-stricken countries with unstable governments as being caused by the jail system. Surely there must be a lot else at work?

I wouldn't say rehabilitation and punishment are mutually exclusive, either.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm not sure you can peg down increased repetition of criminal offenses in poverty-stricken countries with unstable governments as being caused by the jail system. Surely there must be a lot else at work?

I wouldn't say rehabilitation and punishment are mutually exclusive, either.

True enough, you can gain a good amount of insight by looking at recidivism rates between US jails and prisons if you don't want to cross the border. Historically the worst prisons have almost always been accompanied by high rates of recidivism. It's fairly logical. When you spend a decade in a hellish place, surrounded by other convicts, your guards treating you poorly, the food tasting bad, and all you really have to do is communicate with other inmates then two things occur. You get bored, and you begin to become institutionalized to the culture of prison; which is far from a good thing. Prison teaches you to defend yourself because others are out to get you, to act tough, to be violent rather then forgiving. Prison life reinforces everything that the "punishment" of the prison is supposed to cure.

Punishment and reward go hand in hand with rehabilitation. My personal stance is the belief that prisons should be solitary places. The inmates day should consist of the inmate, his workmates, his therapists, and himself. Social contact can be reintroduced to inmates with good behavior. Forcing the worst parts of society to socialize and interact in a relatively unobserved manner and in incredibly close quarters doesn't serve to rehabilitate well.

I hope you mean rehabilitation on a case by case basis.

I have no interest in being able to rehabilitate someone who rapes then EATS his own children.

Rabid dogs like that need to be put down....quickly.

Deadshane1 wrote:I hope you mean rehabilitation on a case by case basis.

I have no interest in being able to rehabilitate someone who rapes then EATS his own children.

Rabid dogs like that need to be put down....quickly.

Well ideally the system would deal with the subjects case by case. A sex offender does not respond to rehabilitation as well as a violent, drug, gang, or white collar offender. But thats true of the current system as well. The point is the careful application of resources towards the best outcome, that outcome being a greatly reduced rate of criminal recidivism. As it is we actually waste more money by cutting costs and focusing on more traditional punishments due to the high rate of repeat offenses.

Curious though, was that just the worst case you could think of? Or do you run into those types a lot?

inmates shouldnt have rights
there in there for a reason they commited a crime
but since jail isnt considered a punishment anymore we fall with are criminals
i think the only thing a inmate deserves is
1:water
2:food
3:10 minutes outside
4:medical care

Deadshane, when you first said 'PC', I thought you meant 'Protective Custody'. Then again, I have the mindset of a prisoner. That might explain things a bit.

This is a pretty common occurance in jail, especially juvenile. Pride is the biggest problem in the whole system, among both inmates and COs, and there's nothing you can do to change it.

As for the whole 'Respect must be earned' thing, I think you should give as much respect to a prisoner as you would to any random stranger you might meet (For all you know, they're criminals as well. Maybe not convicted, but even so). Once they disrespect you in the slightest, then they forfeit that, of course. But prisoners are people, and unless you actually spend some time with any of them, you know little to nothing about their demeanor or circumstance. This is their life, and the jail is their home. Keep that in mind, and I guarantee you will have less altercations and problems with inmates.

Also, I'm really sick of people saying that prisoners deserve less than nothing, actual physical punishment, etc. I know it might just be good-natured, but still. Put yourself in their position. Go lock yourself in a small room with a one-inch tarp matress, feed yourself three fifty cent meals a day (good luck finding that), and give yourself absolutely nothing to do but perhaps read a book. Until you do that, please, shut up (And I don't want to hear 'I don't commit crimes', because their are people in jail for things as trivial as self defense).

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Also, I'm really sick of people saying that prisoners deserve less than nothing, actual physical punishment, etc. I know it might just be good-natured, but still. Put yourself in their position. Go lock yourself in a small room with a one-inch tarp matress, feed yourself three fifty cent meals a day (good luck finding that), and give yourself absolutely nothing to do but perhaps read a book. Until you do that, please, shut up (And I don't want to hear 'I don't commit crimes', because their are people in jail for things as trivial as self defense).

No I will NOT PUT MYSELF IN THEIR POSITION. Thats the ing point.
them. They are a waste of skin and a threat to my family.

There's a pretty broad range of people in prison. These are not equal: the frat boy caught with a bag of weed; someone who was DUI and killed someone in a car accident; a father that molests his own children. Some can be rehabed. Some cannot. There's a big difference between someone who made a 'once in a lifetime' mistake (deliberate or accidental), someone that commits a fairly minor crime, someone who commits a non-violent crime, and someone who victimizes their fellow citizens.

In the US, we warehouse prisoners. We don't try to rehabilitate them (for the most part).

The other problem with prison is that it's 'crime university'. You put a bunch of criminals together, and what do they do? Compare notes on how to commit crimes.

Frazzled: No I will NOT PUT MYSELF IN THEIR POSITION. Thats the ing point.
them. They are a waste of skin and a threat to my family.

Really? All of them? A threat?
I think you wrapped your privilege-blanket a bit too tight.
It may be getting a bit warm, cooking the synapses and all.

Jokes aside.
I've never really felt threatened by criminals (as a social and economic class).
Though, a large amount of our laws are applied arbitrarily or by economic status.
So I wager there are just as many criminals that aren't in the 'system'.
Hmmm, so everyone could be or is a potential criminal.
I starting to think that the anti-rehabilitation folks just want to cut down their competition.

for once i agree with frzz just a little
but like i said prison should be a punishment not a rehab

Belphegor wrote:

Jokes aside.
I've never really felt threatened by criminals (as a social and economic class).
Though, a large amount of our laws are applied arbitrarily or by economic status.
So I wager there are just as many criminals that aren't in the 'system'.
Hmmm, so everyone could be or is a potential criminal.
I starting to think that the anti-rehabilitation folks just want to cut down their competition.

Then you've never been mugged, shot at, or had anything stolen from you. If I had led a sheltered life like that I wouldn't either.

Nuts.

In the US, we warehouse prisoners. We don't try to rehabilitate them (for the most part).

The other problem with prison is that it's 'crime university'. You put a bunch of criminals together, and what do they do? Compare notes on how to commit crimes.

Agreed and thats the problem. If we had a workable effective rehabilitation program I'd be much more in support of that in line with Shuma (as well as expelling foreign nationals who commit crimes here, after they've served their time).

The point about rehab is that without it you might as well just chuck criminals down disused mine shafts.

Its not hard to stay out of trouble...really it isnt.

Therefore, it isnt hard to stay out of jail.


That being said, what happens when 'so and so' gets arrested on a bogus charge or wrongly? I'll tell you.

'so and so' was arrested for we'll say robbing a 7-11, he is actually a law abiding citizen and just happened to be wearing the same t-shirt as the true purp.

'so and so' is now locked up. Do I treat him differently than all the other inmates? No, it isnt my job to judge people and its unfair besides. HOWEVER, chances are that 'so and so' being a law abiding citizen to start with will probably be a calm prisoner and do whatever time he is forced to do w/o making my job more difficult. Will I have to thump him? Most probably not, as he is compliant, cooperative, and generally appreciative of any 'errands' I take care of for him. His calmness and willingness to do his part to make my 12 hours at work easier will be noticed, and I'll be as pleasant as is warrented. I do not know 'so and so' however, he isnt family or friend, so while I may be sympathetic to his plight...its none of my business. He is still an inmate, and needs to accept his situation.

Those that DO get rowdy are pretty much the actual criminals....so F*** them.

If you're innocent of your crime, and STILL get rowdy....F*** them too. I didnt put them there, and I'm not asking for the headache.

Again, respect doesnt even enter into it.

Really? All of them? A threat?
I think you wrapped your privilege-blanket a bit too tight.
It may be getting a bit warm, cooking the synapses and all.

Jokes aside.
I've never really felt threatened by criminals (as a social and economic class).
Though, a large amount of our laws are applied arbitrarily or by economic status.
So I wager there are just as many criminals that aren't in the 'system'.
Hmmm, so everyone could be or is a potential criminal.
I starting to think that the anti-rehabilitation folks just want to cut down their competition.

I think YOU might need MY job for about a year. I'm sure your opinion would change.

We're not talking about the 'so and so's' here.

Its the real criminals we're talking about.

You SHOULD feel threatened....and the rehabilitation we DO offer? You know why 80% of them utilise it?

It's easier time....more privilidges. Do you really think a member of the 'Bloods' cares about getting his G.E.D.? Don't make me laugh. It's the fact that they have a DVD player in the block and 24 hour TV.

Those people it DOES help...great, good for them, but they should've been getting educated OUTSIDE of a jailhouse. Having to come to jail to complete your education is a joke.

Frazzled: Then you've never been mugged, shot at, or had anything stolen from you. If I had led a sheltered life like that I wouldn't either.
Nuts.

If I could reach through the interwebs, I'd pitch your cheeks.

When I was talking about not feeling threatened by 'criminals' I was talking the imaginary bogeyman usage of the word.
You know, when people lump a large group of diverse individuals into a single non-differentiating categories, like 'terrorists' or 'lawyers'.
imaginary ~Criminals~ somewhere... lurking... maybe a killer, maybe has too much weed (either still going to the same place) = not threatening
guy with a mini-crowbar catching me off guard = threatening
cop threatening to shoot me for maintaining a defensive position against someone he's not in control of = threatening
the current system & pursuing a system of harsher punishment will fix neither the real or imagined problems

Well they can't be repeat offenders if they aren't breathing.

Deadshane1: I think YOU might need MY job for about a year. I'm sure your opinion would change.

Nah. If I had your job my judgment would get blurred by the real bastards and I'd just hate on everyone.
I'd be a bad fit. I'm angry enough as is.
I have respect for anyone that can handle working a scage, as long as there not there to due business or play power games.
Especially if they can keep an level head.

and I'm not talking about cuddling the real hard cases, since even with money they don't protect their community
If you bring in 7,000 or more a week at the expense of you neighbors, and you still let their kids go to a junk school with holes in thier shoes and then muscle them into working for you when they are 11...
well there are times that I'm pleased there are little patches of state-made hell
but then I'm angry, so my judgment may be clouded

*edit* see below

Frazzled wrote:Well they can't be repeat offenders if they aren't breathing.

This is one of those situations where I can't really tell if you're trolling, or just a monster.

Belphegor wrote:

Deadshane1: I think YOU might need MY job for about a year. I'm sure your opinion would change.

Nah. If I had your job my judgment would get blurred by the real bastards and I'd just hate on everyone.
I'd be a bad fit. I'm angry enough as is.
I have respect for anyone that can handle working a scage, as long as there not there to due business or play power games.
Especially if they can keep an level head.

and I'm not talking about cuddling the real hard cases, since even with money they don't protect their community
If you bring in 7,000 or more a week at the expense of you neighbors, and you still let their kids go to a junk school with holes in thier shoes and then muscle them into working for you when they are 11...
well there are times that I'm pleased their are little patches of state-made hell
but then I'm angry, so my judgment may be clouded

You misspelled "there"

Well they can't be repeat offenders if they aren't breathing

True. You know what, I don't understand why they are stopping the death penalty. It really helps I think, because there are some people that you don't want on the streets, even after a 40 year life sentence. Also, killing someone rather than letting them live off the government in prison saves taxpayer's money.

mcfly: You misspelled "there"

Thanks, my editor hasn't risen from his hung-over tomb yet.

Passing on the love: Pet Peeves

They didn't stop the death penalty. A lot of states in the USA have it.

Kilkrazy wrote:They didn't stop the death penalty. A lot of states in the USA have it.

Yeah, but they don't use it that often, and when they do, you get these stories about people that sit on death row for years.

mcfly: You know what, I don't understand why they are stopping the death penalty.

It has a record for being unfairly applied.

Well, the few cases of being used wrongly shouldn't stop something useful.

That's like the guy mentioned in the "ever seen fisticuffs over warhammer" topic who stole little kids armies being the point to make 40k go out of business. A few secluded cases shouldn't influence a system or government, except to make the system work better.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Well they can't be repeat offenders if they aren't breathing.

This is one of those situations where I can't really tell if you're trolling, or just a monster.

Shuma you're thinking 2D in a 3D world. There is a 3rd option:

In other words, Frazzled is almost always half-seriously trolling in these threads. He likes to make tough guy statements, like most of the fellas on here. No big deal.

's a very christian attitude though, all this "kill 'em!" "give 'em no food or water and make 'em work hard labour!"
(he said, sarcastically.)

Da Boss wrote:In other words, Frazzled is almost always half-seriously trolling in these threads. He likes to make tough guy statements, like most of the fellas on here. No big deal.

's a very christian attitude though, all this "kill 'em!" "give 'em no food or water and make 'em work hard labour!"
(he said, sarcastically.)

I didn't say anywhere about not giving them enough water.

Whether I'm serious or not I'll leave to myself.

Oh, okay. Sorry. All the water they can drink! Screw California!

Exactly.

Now here's a Q, how would you successfully rehabilitate a criminal, absent "if you come back we're going to whip you to death, or if we're mad, ake you watch Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman"?

It would have to be on a case by case basis, and it would more than likely have a failure rate. Retraining, education, and possibly therapy could help. I'd say there are some that aren't rehabilitatable though.

I know that a few of the people my dad caught changed their ways in prison, but they were only a few.

Frazzled wrote:No I will NOT PUT MYSELF IN THEIR POSITION. Thats the fething point.
Feth them. They are a waste of skin and a threat to my family.

All of them? Really?

That's a pretty shallow and superficial generalization. I guess it's all in the name of protecting your family, which is an admirable goal, but having so much faith in the system (believing that the criminal justice system somehow detains every single criminal that could possibly cause harm to you or your family) is not very intelligent at all. I think you know that. There are more criminals outside of prison than there are inside. Do you treat every person you meet as if they were a serial murderer? By your own rationale, maybe you should. Because you never know.

As for the point. The point was, say you somehow end up in that same situation. You get in a car accident, and kill someone. Someone breaks into your house, and you shoot them. You take self defense too far. There are numerous ways that you could become 'A worthless sack of skin', to what seems like no fault of your own. Do you think you could handle it? You might say so, but I don't think you could. Psychologically, it would change you. Trust me when I say that being locked in a small room for twenty three hours a day drives you insane. The television (and other privileges, such as buying your own food) does not come into play for months, sometimes not at all, depending on your county or state. You really don't realize what you take for granted until that happens; not at all. Would you still advocate that every prisoner be beaten? Of course you wouldn't. Hypocritical, much? Your time would also be made quite a bit harder for you, since you aren't willing to see people as people.

The point, ultimately, is that having next to nothing is punishment enough.

EDIT @ Mcfly: I would much rather be sentenced to death than spend the rest of my life in prison. Trust me, that's the easy way out.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No I will NOT PUT MYSELF IN THEIR POSITION. Thats the fething point.
Feth them. They are a waste of skin and a threat to my family.

All of them? Really?

That's a pretty shallow and superficial generalization. I guess it's all in the name of protecting your family, which is an admirable goal, but having so much faith in the system (believing that the criminal justice system somehow detains every single criminal that could possibly cause harm to you or your family) is not very intelligent at all. I think you know that. There are more criminals outside of prison than there are inside. Do you treat every person you meet as if they were a serial murderer? By your own rationale, maybe you should. Because you never know.

1. I have no faith in the system, other than it will be incompetent and corrupt. But I can say that about most sytems.
2. I do know. Stastically I am not going to commit a crime. I don't drink and drive (DUI offenders should be executed). I am not a thief, nor an arsonist, nor a rapist.
3. Every single criminal has harmed society in some way. They will likely do it again. Therefor for the good aof society they should not be allowedf to cause further damage. A cancer cell is a cancer cell.

4. How do I treat strangers? You're close. Speak softly and carry a big stick+trust but verify. Anyone who doesn't is a fool.

Frazzled wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No I will NOT PUT MYSELF IN THEIR POSITION. Thats the fething point.
Feth them. They are a waste of skin and a threat to my family.

All of them? Really?

That's a pretty shallow and superficial generalization. I guess it's all in the name of protecting your family, which is an admirable goal, but having so much faith in the system (believing that the criminal justice system somehow detains every single criminal that could possibly cause harm to you or your family) is not very intelligent at all. I think you know that. There are more criminals outside of prison than there are inside. Do you treat every person you meet as if they were a serial murderer? By your own rationale, maybe you should. Because you never know.

1. I have no faith in the system, other than it will be incompetent and corrupt. But I can say that about most sytems.
2. I do know. Stastically I am not going to commit a crime. I don't drink and drive (DUI offenders should be executed). I am not a thief, nor an arsonist, nor a rapist.
3. Every single criminal has harmed society in some way. They will likely do it again. Therefor for the good aof society they should not be allowedf to cause further damage. A cancer cell is a cancer cell.

4. How do I treat strangers? You're close. Speak softly and carry a big stick+trust but verify. Anyone who doesn't is a fool.

In having no faith in any system, you should know that statistics mean next to nothing.

What if someone steals from you? Burns your house down? Tries to rape you? Again, with so little faith in the criminal justice system, and judging by your hatred of criminals, I don't think you would be one to detain someone and call 911. Would vigilante justice become justifiable? Would it cease to harm society if they were brought to justice by your own hands? I get the feeling that you think so.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

In having no faith in any system, you should know that statistics mean next to nothing.

You couldn't be more wrong. 78% of statistics are completely accurate, 33.333% of the time.

What if someone steals from you? Burns your house down? Tries to rape you? Again, with so little faith in the criminal justice system, and judging by your hatred of criminals, I don't think you would be one to detain someone and call 911. Would vigilante justice become justifiable? Would it cease to harm society if they were brought to justice by your own hands? I get the feeling that you think so.

A. How does this impact my view on criminals, in jail?
B. It would still harm society regardless. The harm has been done. The reaction is the effect.

I was basically getting at: What would it take for you to become a 'worthless criminal'? To be sent to jail and lumped into the category of those that should be severely punished? Maybe I'm trying to get you to see things in a different light, that not all people deserve to be treated the same way.

Frazzled: You couldn't be more wrong. 78% of statistics are completely accurate, 33.333% of the time.

yeah, your wrong... your MADE OF WRONG!

have the proof

mcfly: Well, the few cases of being used wrongly shouldn't stop something useful.

Black men are more likely to get sentence to death than a white man for the same crime.
It's not a few cases. It's a gross majority.
It is irresponsible to sentence something as final as death unless people are tried and punished equally.

It is irresponsible to sentence something as final as life-long imprisonment unequally as well.

I was basically getting at: What would it take for you to become a 'worthless criminal'? To be sent to jail and lumped into the category of those that should be severely punished? Maybe I'm trying to get you to see things in a different light, that not all people deserve to be treated the same way.

As you yourself stated, why should anyone get preferential treatment? My proposal is absultely fair. Its blind to color, religion, wealth, creed, national background. Its the perfect solution.

Belphegor wrote:

Frazzled: You couldn't be more wrong. 78% of statistics are completely accurate, 33.333% of the time.

yeah, your wrong... your MADE OF WRONG!

have the proof

see thats so bogus. My polling says 88% are completely made up. Clearly that guy's an idiot.

mcfly: Well, the few cases of being used wrongly shouldn't stop something useful.

Black men are more likely to get sentence to death than a white man for the same crime.
It's not a few cases. It's a gross majority.
It is irresponsible to sentence something as final as death unless people are tried and punished equally.

Orkeosaurus: It is irresponsible to sentence something as final as life-long imprisonment unequally as well.

True
But a life sentence can be retracted.

That's very rare.

Death can also be retracted, as the actual execution is delayed quite a bit from the sentencing.

yeah, no pudding?
me != fan of death penalty
Death can't be retracted once someone is dead. That's the goal of the judge giving that sentence.

Rehabilitation works in the Scandinavian countries, on Scandinavian inmates. It is the whole structure of society that is different, that is why it works for them.

I'd rather be killed than go to prison for life. From what I know of prison (which is all second-hand, I will thankfully admit), I think death is probably more humane than being locked up for life. You may still be alive, but you're certainly not living.

Where I live, you can shoot someone who is endangering you as long as you don't shoot them in the back. Last christmas a pizza place was robbed and the guy demanded for everything in the safe. The owner went back to the safe and there was a loaded hand gun in there. Long story short, 1 less criminal in the world. They have great NY style pizza though.

As for the death penalty, I'm all for it. After all, how many of those who are executed complain afterwards?

mcfly wrote:Well, the few cases of being used wrongly shouldn't stop something useful.

since 1973 131 people have been released from Death Row due to proof of their innocence

Belphegor wrote:Death can't be retracted once someone is dead. That's the goal of the judge giving that sentence.

A person who has lost 30 years of their life in prison can't regain those either. Imprisonment can't be reversed, only lessened.

The goal a judge sentencing someone to life in prison is to put that person away for life just as much as the judge sentencing a person to death's goal is to have that person killed. They operate under the conclusion that the person is guilty, because that's the only way any person can have their freedom or life taken away.

I don't have particularly strong opinions on the death penalty one way or the other, but the issue with false convictions is the the convictions, not the sentencing.

I think you will find that executed people have a very low level of mental relief and happiness on being found innocent, compared to people who are released after being unjustly jailed.

Yes, but they're also less annoyed prior to that.

The problem with life imprisonment - is there is no way to guarantee that someone wouldn't get out. With US changes in judges and the law (including issues like overcrowding), 'life in prison' doesn't mean they'll die there. Some are released. I don't support the death penalty because it's a deterrent, I support it because people like Ted Bundy shouldn't ever have a chance of walking free again.

Yeah, or The Joker.

reds8n wrote:

mcfly wrote:Well, the few cases of being used wrongly shouldn't stop something useful.

since 1973 131 people have been released from Death Row due to proof of their innocence

Well, 131 is not all that many it in comparison to the people that have been put on death row in the first place.
Like I said, a few cases shouldn't stop something useful.
I would also prefer death over life in prison, due to the fact that being bored+ADD=not fun.

Ya know, I think an "eye-for-an-eye" policy would work well here.

You kill people = you die.
You rape people = you have an object forced into an orafice several hundred times.
You rape little kids = you are drug behind a vehicle at 10 mph on a gravely road until dead.

Stuff like that.

No, that would mostly just be satisfying for our sense of vengeance and self righteousness. I doubt it would do much to stop people committing murders or rapes or whatever. Murder is generally a crime of passion, and rape is not something that a rationally thinking human being considers anyway- I think you might get some reduction with penalties that harsh, but not a huge reduction. And there's the problem of people being falsely accused.

Of course there would be a trial and whatnot. I'm not talking about punishing everyone who is accused.

And besides, any reduction in crime is better than the current situation.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I dunno, Put it on your legs for an MC Hammer type Parachute Pants look?

This is definitely spam.

Hordini wrote:I hear Australia has better gun laws than the U.S.

LOL


The solution is death penalty for murder, rape and child molestation. Solves a lot of problems all at once.