Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Right know we are studing Crime and punishment in my socilogy class. Know granted what i see mostly is the california so this could be just from calis point of view.

1: non violent offenders are sent to prison. Like drug addicts. We should be helping these people instead of punishing them. Know some nonviolent crimes(like grand theft) should be punishable by prison.
2:We allow them to buff up. Why would we allow criminal to buff up by lifting weights. They could still exercise. But with Cardio.
3: We releash them were they were arrested. How is that not a problem. Especially if they were in a gang
4: THe worst part: People forget that prisoners are humans and thust should be treated like one.

IMO lawbreakers give up their human rights the minute they break the law.

I just hate how nowadays atleast in Canada. Convicts are getting it better then a good half of the people on the outside. Simply said if It were up to me Prisons would only have one room. A oven. If people are going to break laws and cause problems then their quite useless.

corpsesarefun wrote:IMO lawbreakers give up their human rights the minute they break the law.

Pending the crime..... QFT.

corpsesarefun wrote:IMO lawbreakers give up their human rights the minute they break the law.

Why? They are people who make mistakes. We all do.

garret wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:IMO lawbreakers give up their human rights the minute they break the law.

Why? They are people who make mistakes. We all do.

Because if you dont crush the scum with an iron fist you will be up to your balls in the dregs of humanity.

Also, why should those who infringe on others human rights be allowed them?

garret wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:IMO lawbreakers give up their human rights the minute they break the law.

Why? They are people who make mistakes. We all do.

Yes you or I do make mistakes. Our mistakes are things like, forgetting to do the dishes, not cleaning up the house, forgetting to put gas in the car. And on the higher end of our mistakes could be not paying a bill, and having the power go out, running a red light and getting a ticket, you get the point.

Now criminals on the other hand, their "mistakes" break the law. In most cases intentionally break the law, and again most cases are multiple offenders. So I agree with corpsesarefun, they should lose all rights from that point until they are released. Back in time prisoners only got bread, butter and water. And a cot to sleep on. I think thats what they should get now. Plain and simple

garret wrote:what i see mostly is the california so this could be just from calis point of view.

Kalifornia is a wierd place. Don't assume the universe follows.

1: Drug dealers are "non violent offenders". Instead of sending them to prison, they should be summarily executed. Drunk drivers, too. And that Madoff SoB.

2: We allow them to "buff up", because we can't make them work chain gangs 24x7.

3: We release them where they were arrested because we aren't allowed to execute them to keep prison populations down.

4: People forget that prisoners have committed actual crimes against other humans, and had a number of other humans decide they deserve to be treated worse than others.

It costs 20,000 us dollars a year on average for each prisoner. I think all the prisoners that have life sentences should be shot.

dear lord! a septuple post!!!

Woah, how many posts? My thought is that prison should be used to rehabiltate criminals, rather than just simply punish them and see them committing crimes again the second they leave prison.

Stating that all criminals give up their rights you need to define what you consider a criminal. If you consider anybody who breaks the law in any fashion a criminal then I gave up my human rights when I went 66 mph in a 65 mph zone. Oh noes. CERTAIN criminals who truly pay their debt to society and reform themselves deserve a second chance.

KingCracker wrote:

garret wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:IMO lawbreakers give up their human rights the minute they break the law.

Why? They are people who make mistakes. We all do.

Yes you or I do make mistakes. Our mistakes are things like, forgetting to do the dishes, not cleaning up the house, forgetting to put gas in the car. And on the higher end of our mistakes could be not paying a bill, and having the power go out, running a red light and getting a ticket, you get the point.

Now criminals on the other hand, their "mistakes" break the law. In most cases intentionally break the law, and again most cases are multiple offenders. So I agree with corpsesarefun, they should lose all rights from that point until they are released. Back in time prisoners only got bread, butter and water. And a cot to sleep on. I think thats what they should get now. Plain and simple

so your saying someone who tried to feed there family deserve no rights. And the reasson there are multiple cases is there is no rehabilitation. Prisons should be about rehabilitation. Just setting them in a room till they leave is nothing but a band-aid. we releash people who have no skills were the got arrested.

"Prison" is a funny definition for the way I believe the American criminal system treats their inmates.

We should call "Prisons" "Staging Areas" instead. You see, these places should be used as a supply of troops to help American fight wars across the globe. People convicted of violent crimes should use "Staging Areas" as places to train before they are deployed across the globe as a police force to help quell rogue nations and areas of instability.

Those with less severe sentences are given training in all aspects of warfare and personal combat as well as weapon training. Then they are sent back out into America to perfect their skills until such a time as they are "recruited" back into the "Staging Areas" for future deployment.

KingCracker wrote:

garret wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:IMO lawbreakers give up their human rights the minute they break the law.

Why? They are people who make mistakes. We all do.

Yes you or I do make mistakes. Our mistakes are things like, forgetting to do the dishes, not cleaning up the house, forgetting to put gas in the car. And on the higher end of our mistakes could be not paying a bill, and having the power go out, running a red light and getting a ticket, you get the point.

Now criminals on the other hand, their "mistakes" break the law. In most cases intentionally break the law, and again most cases are multiple offenders. So I agree with corpsesarefun, they should lose all rights from that point until they are released. Back in time prisoners only got bread, butter and water. And a cot to sleep on. I think thats what they should get now. Plain and simple

Thats not a terrible belief to hold, but when you concentrate criminals in a small area with nothing to do but interact with other criminals for years on end it's logically a terrible idea. The concept of prisons as places for punishment rather than places for rehabilitation is one of the biggest issues we have right now with prison recidivism and repeat offense. The American prison system does not work as it is currently designed and maintained. Prison makes criminals bigger, stronger, less socially capable, and more prone to violence than when they went in.

It's a brutally broken system.

I think perhaps we shouldn't simply be thinking about "how much" criminals are punished, but also "what criminals" are being punished; what attributes of a person makes them more susceptible to punishment in prison?

I think this is a serious problem with the prison system; if you're a rapist, now you can rape people in prison. If you're a robber you can rob. If you're violent, now you can finally come into a position of power and respect. If you have the inclination to leading criminal organizations, suddenly you may be going pretty far. If you're lazy now you don't have to work. Etc. People who value things like freedom, or nature, or independence, or pacifism, or a score of other traits find themselves being punished more severely than those who have traits close associated with criminality; in that case, is it any wonder that criminals are ditching their better traits?

In Australia, the laws for going to jail are quite poor. Even if everyone knows who should go to jail, the chances are they might not. Less than a week ago, we had a 61 year old Vietnam War Veteran attacked by two pathetic little teens. He managed to chase them off with a bat, but if he hit them, he could go to jail for causing the person injury.

Then we have those Nigerian scammers, replacing store Credirt Card scanners with their own detail swipers. So what if you're family is hungry, does that give you the right to steal, and make another family hungry?

And to tell you the truth, my family would be more than happy if the execution laws came back. Maybe it wouldn't do much better than current laws, but it would certainly make the difference.

You know what I think about Prison?

Prisoners should have to work. Labor camps baby!

Dreadwinter wrote:You know what I think about Prison?

Prisoners should have to work. Labor camps baby!

Tell that to the factory workers they put out of business.

Prisons should be divided into correctional, isolation, and maximum security facilities.

A correctional facility has the following characteristics:
-A jury has ruled that the inmates therein have the capacity to be reformed. This means that where the perpetrator is sent isn't decided in a cookie-cutter fashion by his crime; it's on a case-by-case basis.
-Prisoners are treated with respect as long as they comport themselves in such a manner as to be worthy of the aforementioned.
-The focus of out-of-cell activities is to re-educate the convict and prepare them to return to society. This could include rehab, classroom, or group/individual therapy sessions.

The idea, of course, is that inmates sent to a correctional facility will complete their sentence and be returned to society(and perhaps relocated if they had gang ties). By sending someone here we acknowledge that they have done something reprehensible but can still make a meaningful contribution.


In an isolation facility, we put inmates who should not be returned to society and/or cannot be reformed, but can still cooperate and complete simple tasks. Isolation facility inmates serve much longer sentences, and are put to work each day rather than left to languish in a cell and become increasingly unstable. This also means that, through useful labor, the inmates can partially or completely rebuff the expense of feeding and housing them.

Maximum security facilities, of course, are for the most dangerous and unstable inmates.




So, in conclusion: a correctional facility costs money to operate, but we consider it a worthwhile investment as the inmates will go on to be useful to society. An isolation facility serves as a means to isolate dangerous individuals from society at no cost to the state, as they're still being made to work for food and shelter like everyone else. Maximum-security facilities are reserved for the most dangerous and volatile criminals. Though they would be more expensive to operate, the investment in protecting the rest of society is worthwhile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:You know what I think about Prison?

Prisoners should have to work. Labor camps baby!

Tell that to the factory workers they put out of business.

That depends on what they're put to work doing. Besides, if we aren't spending jaw-dropping sums on feeding prisoners, we can lower taxes or put money into more meaningful projects that can't sustain themselves.

Alot of people with very little knowlegde of correctional systems facilities have very big opinions on the topic.

Im a former super max corrections officer and administrator, so I have some insight most people lack.

The biggest problem of prisons is the general ignorance of their limits.

People expect convicted felons to go in one door and perfect citizens to come out the other side. Its kinda ridiculous to expect that.

Wanna know why?

Money.

Aside from basic housing costs- all the rehabilitative programs cost more money. Every added program opens a larger area that security staff need to cover for the safety of the civilian employees that operate there rehabilitative programs. So, the costs balloon rather quickly.

Now, people in general get rather resentful of funding prison programs when it means taking away money from schools, and all the other municipal and government programs that are being cut nationwide due to the poor economy.

The next problem- in our current trend of a litigous society- prisons arent that bad. Theyre no longer the big scary deterrent they once were- hence why there are so many repeat offenders. Chain gang and hard work crews are pretty rare, and even the state that use them generally work them less than 18 hours a week.

So, until people are willing to make an actual investment into really reforming the prisons- this means funding and judicial support, things will continue to sort of hemorrhage as they have been.

The prison problem is a symptom of a societal issue. It sadly ends up being a budget issue- this is evidenced by the growth industry of corporate prisons which are taking up a large portion of the prison population.

So, keep in mind, fixing people isnt a cheap notion. If you want to really see it done- money needs to be found- this happens with higher taxes, cut programs, or the unlikely event that government gets more efficient.

Our legal system is very slow to adapt, and we're in an era with alot of change. And its showing in our prisons.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Added- the problem with this silly relocation idea is that is wont work. Most felons are convicted in state courts, and hence are housed in that states prisons. Not all states manage inmates the same- so even trading inmates between states is tedious. Setting up a relocation program would take alot of funding because of the supervision involved- it would be more tenuous than parole programs that arent even effective in most states. So theres nothing to stop the offender from hopping on a bus and going back home. Theres also constitutional issues that aer way beyond the purview of a thread like this.

That depends on what they're put to work doing. Besides, if we aren't spending jaw-dropping sums on feeding prisoners, we can lower taxes or put money into more meaningful projects that can't sustain themselves.

Unfortunately prisons are state run, and are almost always at the whims of statewide local economic pressures.

Owain wrote:
That depends on what they're put to work doing. Besides, if we aren't spending jaw-dropping sums on feeding prisoners, we can lower taxes or put money into more meaningful projects that can't sustain themselves.

I can't imagine a scenario where work camps would reduce the cost of maintaining a prison population. In fact it seems, at first glance, as though the increase in food requirements along with the removal from the security of the prison itself would work to increase costs.

corpsesarefun wrote:

garret wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:IMO lawbreakers give up their human rights the minute they break the law.

Why? They are people who make mistakes. We all do.

Because if you dont crush the scum with an iron fist you will be up to your balls in the dregs of humanity.

Also, why should those who infringe on others human rights be allowed them?

This is one of the most idiotic statements I have EVER seen.

ONE: You assume that the legal system is perfect and only the guilty are punished.
TWO: You assume that laws are perfect and just.
THREE: Your notion that someone can "give up" their human rights is utterly disgusting.
FOUR: You assume that all crimes are equally abhorrent.

I guarantee that at some time in your life, you have broken a law. Are you "scum"? Do you deserve human rights? Of course you do. Your sweeping generalization is completely ridiculous. Given prison populations, I'd say that your type of punishment has been disproven. Putting criminals in with other criminals doesn't cure them, it makes them better criminals.
Another issue: laws are imperfect. People who fight for civil rights often break laws. Civil disobedience hardly makes one the "dregs of humanity."
Many of the "scum" as you call them are forced into crime due to their socio-economic status.
You need to examine your view of other people. I think that a slightly more forgiving view might be beneficial to both you and those you judge. If you see others as scum for simple infractions against an imperfect and often immoral legal system, they deserve to see you as such as well.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
THREE: Your notion that someone can "give up" their human rights is utterly disgusting.

How can you be disgusted by a proposition which pertains to something that is, at best, poorly defined and, at worst, of dubious existence?

dogma wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:
THREE: Your notion that someone can "give up" their human rights is utterly disgusting.

How can you be disgusted by a proposition which pertains to something that is, at best, poorly defined and, at worst, of dubious existence?

If you believe in basic human rights, they cannot be given or taken away.
I don't think anyone argues that human rights exist in a real way. Human rights are an ideal.

I think the idea of using violent criminals in the armed forces is interesting. On one hand, we have a supply of people who you can "use" in the most dangerous theaters of war seeing as their on punishment. On the other, we give people who have proven violent tendencys a weapon of sorts and if they are seriously bad criminals, we're both giving them a chance to escape and a chance to commit more crime (both of the normal varitey and the war crime variety)

Personally, I feel we should see criminals as a solution to the power shortage. No, don't burn them, put them on some sort of treadmill hooked up to a genorator. People who say, did a small crime like mugged someone or stole some ones bag in the street, you could give them 1, maybe 2 hours a day. Rapists, murderers and robbers could be given up to 9 hours a day. This also allows the prison to provide better pay for guards and better conditions for those who deserve it because they could sell the power generated.

And don't let them build mussle, let them ply chess!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:You know what I think about Prison?

Prisoners should have to work. Labor camps baby!

Tell that to the factory workers they put out of business.

Labor Camp = Factory

Obviously we cannot put them to work doing other things. Such as cleaning up the mess still in New Orleans from Katrina. Road Construction would also work out pretty well since it is a very high risk job that requires a lot of work.

Oh man, if only we could get past labor camps meaning factory. The possibilities are endless if we can.....

do something like this?



Hello ladies.

Mad Rabbit wrote:THREE: Your notion that someone can "give up" their human rights is utterly disgusting.

It would seem that if human rights cannot be anything taken away by the justice system you're either going to have no justice system at all or leave very few rights left for those who haven't run afoul of it. Surely something like, say, the Japanese internment was a violation of human rights? Or the imprisoning of political dissidents by authoritarian governments and such?

I mean, I would also say there are obviously some rights that can't be taken away for conviction of a crime; the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, for example, wouldn't be very effective in that case.

wizard12 wrote:And don't let them build muscle, let them play chess!

Oh, great idea, instead of cranking out thugs we'll crank out super villain masterminds...

We can't let them have access to chess, fluffy white cats, or any sort of lasers, it's just bad news.