Of course it's relevant. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.The the person does die in the process is entirely irrelevent.
There's also a destinct possiblity that they'd be much less inclined to support the death penalty.I know that most people, if they grew up seeing people hung or shot in public (or on tv) for committing crimes, would be less inclined to commit crimes.
Why don't you enlighten me as to why it would be? The only question we should be considering how much does it cost? Whether they live or die is totally irrelevent as a concept in and of itself.Um, I'm not really sure how a person's death has no relevance to a conversation about the death penalty
Ah, I see. You're only considering the financial side of it. In that case, yes: the death is irrelevant. However, I consider the economics to only be a small piece of the whole. For example, I consider innocent (in the sense of "didn't actually commit the crime") lives to be a fairly sizeable part of the cost.The only question we should be considering how much does it cost?
I see no justification for that.For example, I consider innocent (in the sense of "didn't actually commit the crime") lives to be a fairly sizeable part of the cost.
That's a crock of absolute shit. If you think /money/ can compensate me for the life you stole, that you destroyed.... Sorry, you are sadly mistaken.If you're sentenced to life for something you didn't commit, you could be freed and be given compensation by the state equal to the relevant task you performed
Fair enough.I see no justification for that.
Is it all economic, or isn't it?If you think /money/ can compensate me for the life you stole, that you destroyed....
Unfortunately finding a good deterrent is extremely difficult to do. Everyone reacts to life in a lot of different ways. For instance some prisoners can be deterred from acting up by revoking priveleges. Others can barely be deterred by the threat of death.DV8 wrote: It doesn't seem to be acting like a deterrent.
Same thing here. Some guys fear the idea of doing “all day” but others-well lets just say for some people this is a way of life.Neither do long sentences.
What defeatist attitude.But perhaps this is all a cultural difference again, which makes it useless for me to comment on the subject.
Yeah giving a guy back twenty years of his life usually goes pretty good. I mean I see you’re logic-but a life sentence, hell even 20 years is such a life altering event that if it were unjustly meted out I’d say that there was virtually no way you could correct that sort of mistake.FlakJacket wrote: Against. Mistakes can and do happen. Lot easier to just release a guy than bring him back. That and considering the state of prisons, not like life without parole is that much of an easy option either.
No system is 100% correct-not even the Criminal Justice system that just governs imprisoning people. Out of curiousity what about people who are injustly imprisoned? Should we then not use incarceration as an alternative? That seems to me where your logic leads.The Scamp wrote: In my opinion, there is no way that this system can be correct 100% of the time. You cannot give someone back their life once it is taken. You can return their liberty.
What about the threat he poses to other inamtes and staff? I guess we don’t rate the same protections as everyone else?Lorg wrote: If he is locked away the threat is eliminated, sure he could escape (god knows we know that, Sweden had two prison breaks durring the last two weeks ... fun fun fun .. not). But then I guess hell could freeze over and the dead rise from their graves to, it just isn't very likely.
What is rehabilitation? When is someone rehabilitated?I'm for rehabilitation
The Link Caz provided seems pretty fair. I read through the PDF file it links us to, and it seems pretty dead on. It doesn’t really answer the question clearly though, I would think, since most of us aren’t looking to do that sort of math in our heads.Subversive Agent wrote: What are the current figures for US citizens behind bars vs total US population? Anyone?
Solitary confinement all around. Problem is exercise, showers, chow time... you can't rotate thousands of people so they're always alone 24/7. So you need bigger cells, where people can shit, eat, exercise, read, etc. A change in mentality and architecture is required about the whole crime & punishment thing.
Of course by doing this I'm sure I'm trampling all over the civil rights of prisioners... you'll notice I didn't mention TV, drug dealing or butt sex.
It'd be where I work at-only nation wide.I can’t begin to tell you how much I disagree with this. Too many inmates can already disguise their records as it is, allowing it to be easier would be very bad.Cazmonster wrote: Finally, after you have completed your sentence, your record should be sealed against review by anyone other than law enforcement/judiciary system. You've done your time, you should be able to return fully to society.
No. That makes it wrongful death. Murder requires intent to kill for unlawful, unethical, or immoral reasons.TLM wrote:I can certainly see the logic behind executing the real bastards (pedophile serial rapists, mass murderers, serial killers, etc), but the fact of the matter is that someone who's innocent will always, ALWAYS end up being executed "by accident". And that makes it murder, plain and simple.
Just so we're aware, my quote there is taken out of context. Only after there is a true "Penitentiary" system in place, should records be sealed. The current system does not rehabilitate the majority of its inmates. The general populace does need to know who has committed what crimes against it.Serious Paul wrote:Try and remember most inmates return to normal society. How do you want them coming back?
I can’t begin to tell you how much I disagree with this. Too many inmates can already disguise their records as it is, allowing it to be easier would be very bad.Cazmonster wrote: Finally, after you have completed your sentence, your record should be sealed against review by anyone other than law enforcement/judiciary system. You've done your time, you should be able to return fully to society.
For me, the line is drawn when the state takes an action that cannot in any way be rectified. Yes, as everyone agrees, a person cannot fully be compensated for lost time due to a wrong imprisonment. However, something can be done, the least of which is letting the damn guy go. This is obviously not an option when said guy is dirt napping.What’s the difference between death and life in prison for you? Is just the death? What about a guy who gets 10 years unjustly, and is killed in prison? I am just trying to understand where you draw the line. Its not that I think you’ve drawn it a wrong spot necessarily.
I know that you cannot give back the years that were lost. 32 said that 'restore' was a better word to use, because 'return' means to make everything essentially go away. For me, those connotations are reversed. Nevertheless, I think that we can agree that everybody gets what I was trying to say.Returning liberties by the way is absurd. You can’t give back what was taken-you can only resume at a new point.
The role of prisons or correctional systems (as the vast array of prison or prison-related facilities, programs, and services are called) is to make society a safer place. Prisons are based on the idea that some people are so inherently evil that they must be cut off from the rest of society and closely monitored. Theoretically, however, they should be based on some type of philosophy or rationale for punishment - such as deterrence, retribution, reintegration, incapacitation, or rehabilitation. Throughout most of the twentieth century, the dominant philosophies have been incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution (this combination being called the custodial model) except for a brief period from 1954 to 1974 when rehabilitation (also called the medical model) was experimented with. Rehabilitation died in 1974 with publication of the so-called Martinson Report (Martinson 1974) that "nothing works" and was further delivered the death blow in 1989 with Mistretta v. United States which allowed judges to sentence defendants without regard to the amenability toward treatment or potential for rehabilitation. Martinson's findings that all 231 different ways of treating criminals had failed were called into question by others (Gendreau & Ross 1987; Palmer 1991), but the general consensus remains in criminal justice that prisons not only don't work, but are an expensive way of making bad people worse (Waddington 1992; Blumstein 1995). The Canadians and Brits are about the only ones left in the world who believe in the correctional rehabilitation of criminals, although there is a trend in contemporary jurisprudence for courts to take a more therapeutic approach.
Corrections is believed by many experts to be the most challenging and frustrating component of criminal justice. There are the challenges of managing the inmates daily as well as the frustrations of inevitable mismanagement at attempting to accomplish multiple goals. New challenges present themselves every day. In a very real sense, employees in a correctional system are doing time the same as the inmates are doing time. It's easy to conduct a trial and sentence somebody; what's difficult is what to do with them after they're sentenced. Everything in corrections is done on a large scale because there is an endless stream of prisoners. On average, one new jail or prison is built every week in America.
Operating the American correctional system is quite costly. Expenses run about $32 billion a year, and a conservative estimate is that each prisoner costs the American taxpayer about $21,000 annually ($35,000 a year is the most commonly cited figure), two or three times that amount if the prisoner is aged or sickly. On any given day, there are about 5 and a half million people under some form of correctional custody. There are about 600,000 correctional employees with a variety of job titles, and corrections is the fastest growing part of the criminal justice system. The average pay for correctional officers is $30,000, but an extra $10,000 is usually available by working overtime. Most of the employees work at the state-level (62%), the second largest group in city and county jails (34%), and the rest in federal prisons (4%). The average employee is white and from a rural background; only 34% of correctional officers belong to minority groups, and only 22% are women. There are 4500 correctional facilities in the U.S.; 1084 state prisons, 3304 city and county jails, and 112 federal prisons. Then, because we've only been talking about adults so far, there is the additional group of one and a half million juvenile delinquency cases each year that produces about 70,000 people for the juvenile prison system, 40,000 into private juvenile prisons, and the rest into a variety of detention centers, halfway houses, camps, ranches, and shelters. In addition, approximately seven million Americans spend at least a day in jail every year.
Prison overcrowding is a global problem. Some countries have it worse than the U.S., for example, Australia, Russia, Brazil, and most Asian countries. Housing more inmates in a cell than what it is designed for is common in the U.S. and anywhere else overcrowding is present. The average prison cell built today is at least 70 square feet (7x11 or 8x9), but only about 60 square feet are usable, resulting in 30 square feet per prisoner if double celled. Some older prison and jail cells provide 40 to 56 square feet (5x8 or 7x8). Federal judges in many states have ruled since 1977 that every prisoner deserves at least 60 square feet of cell space. The fact is that cell size varies depending upon the type of facility. In state prisons, the average inmate is male (females only make up about 7% of the prisoner population), around 30 years of age, a high-school dropout (only 22% have finished high school, and between 50-75% are unable to read), and African-American (46%), white (33%), Hispanic (18%), or other (3%). The majority of inmates (60%) have served time before, at least twice, primarily for a violent crime. In federal prisons, one is more likely to find a preponderance of drug and property offenders. More than half of all prison and jail inmates report some type of employment at the time of their arrest, and those that did have a job reported an annual income of less than $10,000 a year. Forty-two (42%) percent of state prison inmates report that they had at least one other family member - usually a brother, parent, or sister -- incarcerated at some time.
TYPES OF FACILITIES
During the 1500s and 1600s, prisons evolved alongside the practices of banishment (exile into the wilderness) and transportation (sending offenders to one of the nation's colonies). Prisons were also seen as a humane alternative to such practices as branding, flogging, and mutilation. Around the year 1550, England created what were called workhouses, also known as houses of correction (London's famous Bridewell workhouse being an example). These became horribly unsanitary and overcrowded places where inmate labor was exploited to turn a profit. When the Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia during 1790 was converted from a jail to a prison, this event is generally marked as America's first state prison. Also in the 1790s, a group of reformers started what became known as the penitentiary movement (Cesare Beccaria 1738-1794; John Howard 1726-1790; Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832). This movement lasted almost one hundred years, and was followed in 1870 by the reformatory movement (Enoch Wines 1806-1879; Zebulon Brockway 1827-1920). The reformatory movement was short-lived, however, and only lasted about twenty years, as by the turn of the century, America was seeking a way to make prison systems more industrial and punitive. During the Great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s, some older penitentiaries and reformatories were expanded in size and became known as big house prisons. Other penitentiaries and reformatories, along with other architectural models became the basis of various correctional center designs throughout the twentieth century. The late 1940s saw a resurgence of interest in rehabilitation again, but like the reformatory movement, only lasted about twenty or thirty years. Most prisons built since 1980 are designed for warehousing or custodial purposes which is sometimes called the just deserts model (a get tough philosophy involving the multiple purposes of incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution).
The 1790 penitentiary followed a hub and spokes pattern (as shown in the birds-eye view to the right). This is also known as the radial design. The subtype known as the Pennsylvania system placed the administration building in the center, and the Auburn (NY) system placed this building on the outer wall. The Pennsylvania system (pictured) was based on solitary and silent confinement, with the Auburn system based on congregate work and meals with silent confinement (but inmates developed hand signals). The administration building in the Pennsylvania system is centered.
The 1950 panopticon, or roundhouse design, was a type of modern penitentiary advocated long ago by Jeremy Bentham. Only two were built in the world. The guard tower is a cylindrical structure going up the middle of the inside, hence the name, panopticon, or all-seeing-eye.
The 1870 reformatory is a large structure like a penitentiary, but notice how the cell doors open inward into a mass hallway (like a hotel). Penitentiaries, by contrast, either have cells with windows on the back of them, or the cells are centered inside the cellblock so inmates can look out their cell doors to see the outside thru the cellblock windows. Reformatories became used for special populations, like juveniles and women. If extra floors are added to the top of a reformatory or penitentiary, the design is called the big house prison design. The original reformatories were designed for rehabilitation, and inmates earned early release, or parole, based on how many points they accumulated for good behavior.
The 1890 courtyard design is also known as a Taggert Fortress, named after an ex-civil war entrepreneur, Colonel Taggert, who bought up a few Army forts, and converted them into prison camps. Convicts were often leased out as laborers or on road crews, or made to exercise, drill, or become industrious.
The 1945 campus design tried to blend in with the environment by allowing trees, rolling hills, etc., and the grounds aren't usually surrounded by a wall, but concertina razor wire instead. The outer perimeter is patrolled by guards on foot, vehicle, and sometimes by a mini-train. The educational center is usually the largest building on campus.
The 1950 telephone pole design, which was advocated by the federal government, is based on a long hallway with living or work quarters as add-on module units attached to the sides. Many federal BOP prisons are based on this model. A few states, like New Mexico, have experienced some terrible riots in them.
The 1980 skyscraper design, like the one shown here, which is the Piedmont Correctional facility in North Carolina, was designed for little more than warehousing offenders, although some of the floors may contain classrooms and/or work rooms. Exercise yards are usually located on the roof. Most major cities (and the feds) have what are called Metro prisons of this type, and often local jails are of this architectural design, as are many private prisons operated by corporations who contract with the government.
The 1990 modular design is also known as a pod prison, direct supervision jail, or new generation design, and like the TV show OZ, consists of living quarters with tall ceilings, mezzanine balconies, sharp architectural angles, Plexiglas panels, and hi-tech environmental control equipment.
Prisons are operated on the basis of care, custody, and control. Of these, control is probably the most important. Prisoners are classified by security level (type of crime) as well as by custody level (flight risk and privileges earned by good behavior), but prisons are only classified by security level (maximum, medium, and minimum). A maximum security prison tends to put the cellblocks near the center of the facility, and inmate movement is severely restricted. Medium security prisons still have some restrictions on movement, and frequently require inmates to be at a certain place to stand for count. Minimum security prisons usually allow inmates to walk around freely. The correctional enterprise is ultimately evaluated on how well all its activities, its treatment as well as security programs, come together and eventually allow for the replacement of correctional control with self-control. There are no simple way to do this. Corrections is affected by laws, political appointments, judicial decisions, and demographics. It has no power to restrict the flood of people that enter its doors every day. Yet it must do something, anything, to treat, rehabilitate, and reintegrate its clientele. It is a fascinating area of study, full of challenges and frustrations, and ripe for new ideas.
THE CORRECTIONAL PARADOX
There are many paradoxes when it comes to the study of corrections. A paradox is simply something you wouldn't expect to find. The industry seems particularly vulnerable to cyclical patterns in the ebb and flow of ideas, but as much as things change, things remains the same. Correctional paradoxes are one of the least-researched areas in criminal justice.
Paradox 1: Corrections is an unarmed paramilitary organization. Sure, there are a few guards who have guns up in the towers, but by-and-large, weapons are not a routine part of everyday life, and most guards don't carry guns. No one really knows for sure why, but corrections adopted a military model, like the police; but unlike the police, they're comparatively unarmed.
Paradox 2: Corrections is an organization where everyone is a supervisor. Everyone, all the way up to the front-office secretary, is expected to keep an eye on any inmates who might be working in that area. Another way of putting it is that every job position has some inmate supervision responsibilities. Non-custodial staff do not normally put "correctional administrator" down on their resume, but technically, they could. Such people are also pressed into security service during lockdowns and other periods of institutional crisis.
Paradox 3: Corrections has the loosest set of executive titles imaginable. While many job titles are set by the state's civil service authority, once you start talking about the upper-echelon of management, you run into the widespread use of discretion to make (political) appointments, set salaries, and create job titles. This is one of the places where you run into the proliferation of titles like "assistant-to-the-assistant," "deputy-under," and "vice-executive," to name a few.
Paradox 4: Corrections is the only profession where a significant majority of employees will tell you that they entered the field by accident. I defy you to name another field of work, other than truck driving, that people simply fell into out of unemployment or insecurity. This complete lack of any recruitment mechanism has enormous consequences. For one, employees can be regarded as expendable; and two, it limits professionalism as long as the field is perceived as one of easy entry--"hire 'em and throw 'em the keys."
Paradox 5: Correctional officers are regarded by inmates as the lowest form of human life possible. They believe that only the worst form of human being would take a job locking up other human beings. They hate guards worse than police. This unique stereotype defies analysis by the usual methods of studying inmate subculture (importation v. indigenous hypotheses). It appears to be something picked up as soon as you walk in the gate.
Paradox 6: Correctional officers are usually white, low-income people from rural areas (in part, due to the fact that most prisons are located in rural areas). Inmates are usually black, low-income people from urban areas. The rural-urban dimension stands out in stark contrast, and its effects go far beyond what sociology and other disciplines claim to know about rural-urban differences. In many ways, it goes to the heart of many prison issues.
Paradox 7: Correctional officer attitudes are surprisingly liberal. Survey after survey shows that guards actually believe in things like rehabilitation. They're optimistic about inmate chances for success when they get out. They believe that they (the guards) are important "change agents" and that incarceration does have a rehabilitative effect. This is surprising, since we would expect criminal justice employees who come into the closest contact with criminals, manipulators, and so forth, to have hardened attitudes (like the police do) about criminals, but not so with correctional officers. There's some research indicating that if guards were allowed to have more input into the counseling and rehabilitation of inmates, they might do a better job.
Paradox 8: There's no proof that higher education has any benefit to correctional employees. In fact, it may actually lower job satisfaction. This is because, in part, no bona fide job task analysis has ever been thoroughly conducted on the benefits of higher education; another reason might be because employees with higher education have more career options than remaining in corrections work.
Different methods for different people. Some inmates can live and work fine in a more open prison system while some are just completely fucked and needs to be locked up by themselves. If you are all alone and the only contact you have is say with professionals (be that corrections officers, psychologist or medical personel, a priest if you feel like it or what have you they are not a threat to other inmates, there is always a risk I guess in the handling of prisoners but I'm sure that risk can be reduced to an workable level.Serious Paul wrote:What about the threat he poses to other inamtes and staff? I guess we don’t rate the same protections as everyone else?
Serious Paul wrote:What is rehabilitation? When is someone rehabilitated?
Rehabilitation would be when you have learned to function in society again, when you have learned to controll yourself. Both of these appear to be beyond some people and these are the once we have to lock up all by themselves so they can't harm anyone else. I'm sure I have missed something about rehabilitation. When is it done? Hard to say I guess, I'm not really sure when someone is truely rehabilitated. I recon it's a judgement call for a professional.rehabilitation
n 1: the restoration of someone to a useful place in society
Which means we really do have to have them occupied and not left on their own doing whatever they feel like.Serious Paul wrote:Its a proven fact that inmates with stuff to do are less likely to be problems.
I agree, I was a little harsh there. Sorry. The reason that subject is so touchy with me is the job. All too often in prison safety is an after thought. Which given the clientele seems it wouldn't make any sense.lorg wrote:Different methods for different people.
Intresting. Whats useful?rehabilitation
n 1: the restoration of someone to a useful place in society
So never ever commiting a crime again? Or never getting angry? Function how? Do you see what I mean? Now try and codify that into a program that can be taught. I think you have a good grasp on the edge of this problem.Rehabilitation would be when you have learned to function in society again, when you have learned to controll yourself.
Except when they're wrong.I recon it's a judgement call for a professional.
Its not for a lack of trying, often funds prevent this from happening. It all comes down to do you spend your tax money on schools or prisons? A choice that is paradoxical when you think about it.Which means we really do have to have them occupied and not left on their own doing whatever they feel like.
And that makes it ok, then?Salvation122 wrote:No. That makes it wrongful death. Murder requires intent to kill for unlawful, unethical, or immoral reasons.TLM wrote:I can certainly see the logic behind executing the real bastards (pedophile serial rapists, mass murderers, serial killers, etc), but the fact of the matter is that someone who's innocent will always, ALWAYS end up being executed "by accident". And that makes it murder, plain and simple.
I'm fairly aware of how fucked up that would be. The expenses would be enormous. But short of the gym bit, I believe that would be the best option. Especially when everyone's talking about going to jail and getting buggered up the arse.You have no idea how seriously fucked up that would be. It'd be where I work at-only nation wide.
Why is it illegal? Does the constitution say you're entitled to social activity when in jail? I'm just asking here, I have no idea why it would be illegal.Not only would it be completely illegal, but ignoring that imagine what you would be doing to these people. Wow. I work Seg-there’s a reason its punishment.
Tamed.But the there are a sort of federal cell that fits your description-the place they have Noriega at has a cell that has its own shower, yard and facilities. He never leaves it. It has a sally port style food delivery system-and as far as I know they use that deliver books and mail too.
Try and remember most inmates return to normal society. How do you want them coming back?
It's not just the expenses. Look up some of Paul's stories that may or may not have happened at work. When you take away social interaction, cons will find ways to pass the time. Mostly by fucking with the guards. And when you take away a man's hope, there's nothing else to offer him that will keep him manageable.I'm fairly aware of how fucked up that would be. The expenses would be enormous.
Not specifically, but you'll have a hard uphill battle to prove that this isn't cruel and unusual. Not to say that the current situation isn't, but changes should be for the better.Why is it illegal? Does the constitution say you're entitled to social activity when in jail?
Isn't that always the case, the budget and the rules are always set by someone far away that rarely has a clue.Serious Paul wrote:However prisons are run by budgets not what is in the best intrest of staff or inmates. Prisons are just too damn expensive to do anything else.
If it doesn't blow up don't touch it, if it blows up there is a whiplash over-reaction.Prisons are also reactive as a whole. That means safety measures are generally the result of something bad happening. This means when people get hurt we suddenly get monday morning quarterbacked into new rules. Its really frustrating to know that something is going to happen and to be able to do nothing because policy can't be changed until there is severe property damage or loss of life. Think about that. Think about how you'd be in a job like that.
Hard to say really. Very vague and I assume it is different from place to place, time to time and person to person.Intresting. Whats useful?rehabilitation
n 1: the restoration of someone to a useful place in society
I would assume that would be the goal, even thou highly unlikely. Angry fine, angry with a baseball bat on another persons skull preferably not.So never ever commiting a crime again? Or never getting angry? Function how? Do you see what I mean? Now try and codify that into a program that can be taught. I think you have a good grasp on the edge of this problem.
They can't be right all the time. But we have to have some form of mechanism in place to judge when a person is fit for release.Except when they're wrong.I recon it's a judgement call for a professional.
It certainly is.Its not for a lack of trying, often funds prevent this from happening. It all comes down to do you spend your tax money on schools or prisons? A choice that is paradoxical when you think about it.
Fine, get them a TV then. Or give them internet chats. Or something. Just take away physical contact.WillyGilligan wrote:It's not just the expenses. Look up some of Paul's stories that may or may not have happened at work. When you take away social interaction, cons will find ways to pass the time. Mostly by fucking with the guards. And when you take away a man's hope, there's nothing else to offer him that will keep him manageable.
Let's just put a "I am a pedophile, kick me" sticker on their backs and leave them to roam the streets free, shall we?Not specifically, but you'll have a hard uphill battle to prove that this isn't cruel and unusual. Not to say that the current situation isn't, but changes should be for the better.
First off, the type of crimes for which the death penalty is issued (murder, et cetera) are the kind usually committed in situations where the perpetrator does not or cannot fully evaluate the consequences of their actions. They are usually committed in the heat of the moment.I know that most people, if they grew up seeing people hung or shot in public (or on tv) for committing crimes, would be less inclined to commit crimes.
Actually, Szech, that part isn't true. It is those crimes you mentioned that most often get plea bargained down to a lesser sentence, and of those that do go to trial, the death penalty is rarely sought. Heat of the Moment crimes allow no time for conspiracy, calculation, or planning - all of which are things that can elevate a crime to Murder One.Szechuan wrote:First off, the type of crimes for which the death penalty is issued (murder, et cetera) are the kind usually committed in situations where the perpetrator does not or cannot fully evaluate the consequences of their actions. They are usually committed in the heat of the moment.
If this is a joke, it's a horrible joke. If this is not a joke, I feel pity for u.3278 wrote:We don't need the death penalty. We need prison reform. Take everyone who's black, and send them back to Africa with our government's humble apology for allowing people to buy them and ship them here. That'll empty our prisons and reduce crime drastically. Also, it'll mean fewer people, less urbanization, and more available jobs for those people who came here not in chains and collars, but voluntarily. Much like Europe after the black death, thing's'll be rough for a little while, but in the end, everyone will be better off than they were. Well, except maybe the "New Africans," but if they're at all clever, they'll be gods to the old africans, who know nothing of how to produce electricity, use water power, or make galoshes.
Oh, gee. Not many african-americans know how to do those things, either. Well, better learn quick, guys.
I guess I can see why you'd think that. I answer to this along with something else you say.Subversive Agent wrote:I'm fairly aware of how fucked up that would be. The expenses would be enormous. But short of the gym bit, I believe that would be the best option. Especially when everyone's talking about going to jail and getting buggered up the arse.
Seg is not illegal yet. It, Segragation as a tool in prisons, is facing daily challenges that could very well result in it being declared cruel and unusual punishment many years down the road.Why is it illegal? Does the constitution say you're entitled to social activity when in jail? I'm just asking here, I have no idea why it would be illegal.
They're correct. For a lot of guys this is a VoTech school. Better than being at home. At least in prison they get three hot meals a day, and they have a place to sleep.Someone also mentioned "just" being in prison isn't all that much of punishment for some.
Oh no, thats not true at all. Segragation is generally home to the hearts of most Prison Gangs from what I can see. We house their leaders. No segragating them wouldn't slow the gangs down a bit-Prisons are like sieves. Drugs, and more filter in all over the place. You seal one leak, and another springs up.Perhaps automatic segregation would also help here. You'd be rid of jail gangs, drug trafficking (they'd find a way, I know), prison killings, etc etc.
Yeah you'd think that-but actually Seg is more likely to see you assaulted. I was assaulted like 60 times on average my first two years. I couldn't begin to tell you how many threats I still get to this day, after nearly 5 years.You also mentioned the security of the guards, and how no one worries about them. This also sounds seems like a minimum risk solution for guards (minus the putting them in and taking them out, of course).
Tamed.
Yeah I hear you.I'm just up for making prison a cold, dark and uncool place to be. Seems to me every idiot has to do jail once in their lifes to pretend to others he's a man. Being an ex-con is a cool thing, at least amongst the wrong crowds. In my uninformed view, that is.
Oooh, hyperbole time! Does that mean we can ship white criminals back to Europe with apologies for allowing the government to bullshit a truckload of immigrants that this was the land of opportunity? What do we do about Hispanic criminals, ship 'em back to Spain with apologies for making our border so damned easy to cross and apologize for Spain's actions in Central and South America?3278 wrote:We don't need the death penalty. We need prison reform. Take everyone who's black, and send them back to Africa with our government's humble apology for allowing people to buy them and ship them here. That'll empty our prisons and reduce crime drastically. Also, it'll mean fewer people, less urbanization, and more available jobs for those people who came here not in chains and collars, but voluntarily. Much like Europe after the black death, thing's'll be rough for a little while, but in the end, everyone will be better off than they were. Well, except maybe the "New Africans," but if they're at all clever, they'll be gods to the old africans, who know nothing of how to produce electricity, use water power, or make galoshes.
Oh, gee. Not many african-americans know how to do those things, either. Well, better learn quick, guys.
Me. Vote Ang for Judge (Dredd). I am the law.ak404 wrote:The question then becomes, who the fuck should be allowed to determine that?
lorg wrote:Isn't that always the case, the budget and the rules are always set by someone far away that rarely has a clue.
Ain't that true? Heh.That's it in a nutshell.If it doesn't blow up don't touch it, if it blows up there is a whiplash over-reaction.
Very true. Which is why they can't find a system that works yet. At least by traditional standards.Hard to say really. Very vague and I assume it is different from place to place, time to time and person to person.
Yeah I hear you there.I would assume that would be the goal, even thou highly unlikely. Angry fine, angry with a baseball bat on another persons skull preferably not.
I should explain my remarks.They can't be right all the time. But we have to have some form of mechanism in place to judge when a person is fit for release.
I missed this. Sorry.So as a prison officer (or corrections officer or X) how would you like to see the prison system? Time to answer some questions here. How would you like it to be, how would you like it to work. What kind of education do you have for the job etc etc.
