Punishment vs Rehabilitation

  • Thread starter Thread starter BornInMarch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I certainly agree that US prisons are deplorable, Ive never been in one, but I have watched plenty of prison documentaries, that show how prisoners live, Ive also seen some on Mexican prisons, seems to me, the prisoners have an easier life in Mexican prisons, especially women…

In a womens prison in Mexico, their children are allowed to live with the women, they accommodate them with all the necessary things needed of course, the women wear their own clothes, NOT prison jumpsuits, its more of a community than a prison, visitors can come and go within the prison unrestricted, they are allowed to interact with prisoners, in the US, many will not even allow prisoners and visitors to touch, in some cases, they can only communicate by video screens!!!

In a Mexican mens prison, on visiting day, long lines stand waiting at the gates, then they are allowed in, they can come and go unrestricted, they can go in the cells, anywhere they like, the warden said they do try to search people, but admitted its impossible to search everyone, that would simply be too impractical, but they make sure to do this in US prisons, and they make sure EVERYONE is searched!!

Im not saying searching visitors is wrong, but for everyone, no, thats ridiculous and I think its highly wrong to restrict visitors to the degree US prisons do, they are preventing contact between women and their children, husbands and wives, etc. that is cruel imo.

Ive also seen some documentaries on Eastern European prisons, again, they are allowed to wear their own clothing, they can have appliances in their cells, coffeemakers, fridges, tvs, etc, whatever someone wants. They can have someone on the outside buy groceries for them as well, Visitors here are also allowed unrestricted access to all areas in the prison when visiting, it really seems the US is the only ones who put these crazy restrictions on prisons.

I do agree though, there are certain people that do need to be locked down most of the time, there are some truly evil people, but for the majority, I think they go too far, someone convicted of drug, financial,etc type crimes do not deserve this same type of prison.
Well said. The American Prison System is a disgrace.

It is telling that even European War Criminals get more humane prison conditions than American crackheads.

icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/structure%20of%20the%20court/detention/Pages/detention.aspx
 
Born, prisoners already get free food and medical care as it is, courtesy of taxpayers. Are there probably instances where food isn’t as fresh as possible? I’m sure - but you have to ask where the bulk of the evidence lies (just as in the trials where prisoners get convicted!)

Quoting the bible isn’t helpful as you are cherry picking quotes to make it appear that no one should be put in prison. This is just an exercise in your using all means to defend what is clearly your pet issue.

And still no words for crime victims…
 
…
It is telling that even European War Criminals get more humane prison conditions than American crackheads.
…
If you believe everything you see on TV, you should change your name to “Born Yesterday.”

European criminals get better treatment than their victims. This English prison doctor offers an observation:

“It’s This Bad”
Theodore Dalrymple
city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html
In a strange inversion of proper priorities, important matters are taken lightly and trivial ones taken seriously. The case of the gay horse.

“The Elite Ruling Class War Against Victims: Assuring Occupational Safety for Violent Criminals”
By Lester Jackson, PhD., on September 23rd, 2011
homicidesurvivors.com/2011/09/25/the-elite-ruling-class-war-against-victims.aspx?view=threaded
The recent shooting of a robber by a pharmacist and the pharmacist’s subsequent prosecution highlights a disturbing trend of turning criminals into victims.

Why don’t you ask your police department if they have a ride-along you can join for a night or two?

“In America, you have no rights until you’ve committed a crime.”
 
Last post: “I’ve never been into a prison but I’ve seen pictures on TV, and I assume everything I see on TV is accurate, so…”
Im not referring to shows like ‘cops’ and shows like it, I know most of those are fake and scripted, Im talking about real documentaries, done at real state prisons.
 
I’d add this: Nowhere in any of these posts has anyone voiced a thought about the victims of crime, and their rights.
That is because it is not the topic. It is not relevant to the topic. If the issue was revenge, then it would be relevant.
 
By deplorable conditions, I mean the conditions in prisons are a national disgrace. Prisoners finding maggots in their food, prisoners dying in the infirmary as a result of there not being enough doctors on staff, prisoners getting raped by cellmates while the guards do nothing (and most prison guards ignore rape complaints from inmates) and while the rest of the world laughs about it. Those conditions.
.
Then let me put your mind at ease. This is not prison, at least the normal condition of prison. Yes, bugs may get in food, just like they might in one’s own kitchen, yet kitchens still have to undergo and pass health inspection. Yes people die in prison, just like they do in the world. The current standard of care is not extraordinary, but rather health care must be comparable to that which is received by any other indigent person. In most cases, since the prisoners do not pay, they get better care than most indigent people. In today’s litigious society, believe me, no one wants a death that could be avoided by proper health care. Law suits will still cost more than good health care…

Finally, a word about rape. Yes it happens, but it is not nearly as common as people think. The Prison Rape Elimination Act was a great idea, but it was aimed at a problem that was overblown in the minds of the legislators that passed. it. Yet still it is the law. No one is allowed to ignore any complaint of rape. In thirty years, I have know of one legitimate case of forcible rape. All the others ended up as some case of confirmed manipulation of family or some sort of mental illness. Now official oppression, that is sexual harassment or activity by staff has occurred half a dozen times and is really more of an issue. Yet as we know, this sort of harassment occurs also outside of prison.

While I know documentaries are better than movies as a source, understand that they are still selling entertainment. They are not going to use those prisoners that do not provide what they are trying to portray. Likewise, prisoners’ rights group are composed to a large extent of family members of prisoners. While I admire the principle of standing up for their loved ones well-being, I wish they were more realistic about the probability of their dear loved one who was a habitual liar and manipulator outside of the prison, has probably not changed. Perhaps one should not take at face value every story that comes out of prison from a prisoner. If I am dealing with a parent, they usually get this. Spouses usually do not.
 
pnewton, while I still think the prison system is too draconian (especially compared to prisons in Europe {some of which house war criminals}), I am still going to take a moment to thank you for your comment.

In your comment, you presented your ideas in a calm, rational, and level headed manner. After hearing PolarGuy and Unstoppable II rant about how prisoners don’t deserve human rights, hearing you present a reasonable counter to my arguments is a breath of fresh air.

I commend you on your politeness.
 
pnewton, while I still think the prison system is too draconian (especially compared to prisons in Europe {some of which house war criminals}), I am still going to take a moment to thank you for your comment.
You are welcome. I guess incarceration is kind of my thing. Of course I think any *long *term isolation in prison is draconian by the very nature of one losing freedom. Every parent learns this simple truth. Time out is effect in short periods only. Make the punishment too long, and you only teach how to endure the time out.

There are many of us, most all in my location, who do believe in treating those who are locked up with what they call “professionalism”. I love to use that term because it appeals to the secular mindset of doing a good job. However, what I* really *teach is treating people with human dignity. The best example is how we apply force in violent encounters. We react only against the action, not the person, and look to de-escalate and normalize the situation as quickly as possible.

I may be a Pollyanna, but I think the best rehabilitation only will come from treating people with human dignity, something I learned from my faith, and from parenting.
 
Born, saying that I “ranted” “about how prisoners did not deserve human rights” is factually false; intellectually dishonest; and, frankly, reflects poorly on your reasoning abilities.

Please quote exactly where I said prisoners did not deserve human rights.

[The same way you were going to quote where public urination is a sex crime, remember?]

All you’ve really demonstrated is that you don’t like what I have to say, and can’t really refute it, so you’ll basically (i) namecall, i.e., I “ranted;” and (ii) just make things up, i.e., that I said prisoners don’t deserve human rights.

Those are dodges commonly used in debates/arguments when one person doesn’t know how else to respond. Oddly, you have thus paid me a compliment, by needing to say these things. Thank you!

All people deserve human rights, but you’ve never established that prisoners in the US aren’t receiving these. To the contrary, you clearly have no answer to prisoners’ receipt of free food; free medical care; free access to the legal system; and free access to perks like cable TV and weight rooms.

Finally, PNewton, it’s highly relevant that no one is mentioning crime victims – because it shows where people’s concerns are, and where those concerns aren’t. It might behoove you and others to say something easy like, “we must pray for, and actually physically help, those victims of crime.” Not too hard, is it? Yet no one ever wrote that. Telling. Very telling.
 
Please quote exactly where I said prisoners did not deserve human rights.
Right there.
–IMHO prisoners should not be allowed to vote. Why? Because voting and hence controlling the government, albeit indirectly, should be a privilege not afforded to those who don’t deserve it …
According to the website humanrightsadvocates.org, the right to vote is a basic human right.

humanrightsadvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/The-Right-to-Vote-A-Basic-Human-Right-In-Need-of-Protection.pdf

The UN also agrees that voting is a human right.

un.org/en/globalissues/democracy/human_rights.shtml

The thing about human rights is that they should NEVER be taken away. The reason is that, no matter what you do or how guilty you are, you are still a human being. That’s what “unalienable” means.

Erring on the side of mercy is always better than erring on the side of punishment. That’s why people are Innocent Until Proven Guilty, as well as why most civilized nations base their laws around the idea that ten guilty men going free is preferable to a single false conviction
 
Born, let’s be clear about some things:
  1. OK, thank you for now admitting that I did NOT say prisoners should be denied human rights. You said I claim that they should not be entitled to vote, and you changed what I said based upon your subjective criteria for what a human right is, i.e., misquoting me. For the record, many people – including US lawmakers – reject that voting is a “human right to be accorded to all.” This is pure subjectivity.
  2. Further, the links you quote – which are not binding on anyone, i.e., they are just opinions – don’t say what you claim they do. For example, nowhere do they appear to say that there cannot be restrictions (i.e., age) on the right to vote. If something is a human right, people are entitled to them regardless of age or other qualifications, right? Freedom and sustenance may be human rights, but are you advocating that 3-year-olds can vote? Apparently so. If the right to vote may be restricted, OK, just restrict it to non-felons!
  3. This post has devolved: The more you post, the more it becomes apparent that you’re not really concerned about prisoners’ treatment (because if it was, your facts would be more accurately stated, i.e., claiming public urination is a sex crime). Really, what your pet issue is, is that felons should be allowed to vote. You’ve changed the goal posts: You really aren’t concerned about prison treatment, only that they be allowed to vote (because that’s all you’re really advocating).
  4. And still no word for victims. Please tell the truth: Do you actually think everyone in prison is innocent (because all inmates certainly think that!)? And your posts certainly seem to think that!
 
It ought to be clear to all that, when BorninMarch started this thread, Born didn’t actually want honest debate, and in that respect the original post was intellectually dishonest. If Born wanted genuine debate, he/she would not have needed to (i) misquote those who disagree with him/her; (ii) write inaccuracies, i.e., “public urination is a sex crime;” (iii) namecall as a tactic (i.e., saying others were “ranting.”). Instead, Born just wanted others to agree.

But hey, it’s a free country, where you don’t go to jail for airing your (wrong) opinions…unlike in some other nations…
 
I noted two things in your links. The first is just a group out of Berkley that is arguing, not for human rights in general, but for voting rights in particular for prisoners. Therefore, that argument just begs the question. It is like quoting the Book of Mormon as proof of the angel Maroni. The second, the UN link contains several links to certain UN accords. While they affirm the need for universal voting rights and safe, private balloting, they do not cover imprisonment at all. The right to universal suffrage, if the context is ignored, would include infants and children. Within the context, no real definition is attempted.

I say that because I think it disingenuous to accuse someone of not respecting human rights because they do not agree that the right of felons to vote is a human right. It makes no more sense than to suggest I do not respect the human rights of a six year old because I do not think they should vote. Nor do I think that those who choose not to vote are somehow lacking in human dignity.
 
I think the felons being able to vote issue is kind of overblown, I just wonder if past felons were suddenly given the right to vote, how many would actually vote, and if they did, it would definitely benefit the democratic party.

I think the larger concern should be ensuring people who are released from prison are able to start over with a clean slate, if you put up roadblocks to them getting a job, finding a place to live, etc. that is going to accomplish nothing more than guaranteeing they continue on in the criminal lifestyle.

Maybe after 10-20 years, convictions should automatically come off records, just like credit reports, I will be honest, I have a minor in possession of alcohol on my record, I was 18 at the time and was caught with beer in car with my friends at the time, I am now 41 yrs old, my last job, I had to declare this on my application, I remember about 3 people laughed about this, they could not believe something like this was still on my record. This kind of thing does not effect my ability to get a job though, but someone else, who had a more serious crime, it likely would effect them getting hired, even if it was 30+ yrs ago, and they had not done anything else.

I dont think this will change though, I dont really believe rehabilitation is the goal anymore, instead, with the laws they have, it truly seems they prefer a person to remain a criminal, thus keeping cells full all the time.
 
I think the felons being able to vote issue is kind of overblown, I just wonder if past felons were suddenly given the right to vote, how many would actually vote, and if they did, it would definitely benefit the democratic party.

I think the larger concern should be ensuring people who are released from prison are able to start over with a clean slate, if you put up roadblocks to them getting a job, finding a place to live, etc. that is going to accomplish nothing more than guaranteeing they continue on in the criminal lifestyle.

Maybe after 10-20 years, convictions should automatically come off records, just like credit reports, I will be honest, I have a minor in possession of alcohol on my record, I was 18 at the time and was caught with beer in car with my friends at the time, I am now 41 yrs old, my last job, I had to declare this on my application, I remember about 3 people laughed about this, they could not believe something like this was still on my record. This kind of thing does not effect my ability to get a job though, but someone else, who had a more serious crime, it likely would effect them getting hired, even if it was 30+ yrs ago, and they had not done anything else.

I dont think this will change though, I dont really believe rehabilitation is the goal anymore, instead, with the laws they have, it truly seems they prefer a person to remain a criminal, thus keeping cells full all the time.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.

One of the selling points GEO Group (a company that privately owns prisons) uses to win investors is high recidivism.
 
Maybe after 10-20 years, convictions should automatically come off records, just like credit reports, I will be honest, I have a minor in possession of alcohol on my record, I was 18 at the time and was caught with beer in car with my friends at the time, I am now 41 yrs old, my last job, I had to declare this on my application, I remember about 3 people laughed about this, they could not believe something like this was still on my record. This kind of thing does not effect my ability to get a job though, but someone else, who had a more serious crime, it likely would effect them getting hired, even if it was 30+ yrs ago, and they had not done anything else.
Besides reducing incarceration time and decriminalizing most drug possessions, this is one of the changes I would like to see, though some crimes need to stay available longer. Yet even if one has something on the record, people still need a job. Job placement costs less than recidivism.
 
With due respect, the issue of “how long convictions stay on your record” bespeaks posters’ lack of knowledge about this subject: states have various statutes wherein convictions can be made to legally disappear after some period of years. The process is called “expungement.” If you want to argue that it ought to be more available, fine, but it exists already.
 
With due respect, the issue of “how long convictions stay on your record” bespeaks posters’ lack of knowledge about this subject: states have various statutes wherein convictions can be made to legally disappear after some period of years. The process is called “expungement.” If you want to argue that it ought to be more available, fine, but it exists already.
If you wish to speak with “due respect” it can be done without making false assumptions about someone’s knowledge. It’s eady to do.

The process of expunging records does vary state to state. What was being addressed was the possibility of limiting how long different crimes stay on the record as a matter of statute, as in, without having to file a legal motion to have some records expunged, that maybe shouldn’t be on there anyway at some point.
 
There is nothing in anyone’s posts suggesting they know anything about the subject of expungements. For that matter there’s nothing in any posts suggesting anyone has any real detailed knowledge or study about prisons at all!

I’ll move on. I’ve made my points.
 
There is nothing in anyone’s posts suggesting they know anything about the subject of expungements. For that matter there’s nothing in any posts suggesting anyone has any real detailed knowledge or study about prisons at all!

I’ll move on. I’ve made my points.
There is nothing to suggest they don’t. I have knowledge of these issues, so if I was included in your use of “anyone”, then your judgment is in error. This is why it is better to address the topic, even if we suspect something about others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top