| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/22/2007 08:03:42 AM · #26 |
| I doubt the guy compaining got 12 years for a petty crime. And how many of them are going to accept education? |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 08:09:02 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by hsolakidis:
And how many of them are going to accept education? |
Not sure where this remark is coming from? Why wouldn't they? |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 08:09:20 AM · #28 |
I think its about time that criminals have to be punished. When we have a country that has families homeless and on the streets, while felons live with tv, beds, food, etc...That is WRONG. We need more of this, maybe we would have less crime.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 08:29:01 AM · #29 |
Having just retired after 20 years working in the Massachusetts prison system, after watching the pendulum swing from the left to the right and back to the left again, watching inmates commit crime after crime like the proverbial revolving door, prisons here in the US need to be harder.
Imprisonment itself is NOT a deterrent. It's much too easy for convicts.
If you have specific questions, I'll gladly answer! But you all have touched on so many topics, I thought I would offer an "inside" opinion as it were! LOL |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 08:34:39 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
do me a favour ... i know this is a generalised argument anyway, because we're generalising about prisons, prisoners and crime.
i consider myself liberal, but i support more strict prison systems ... i agree that prisons cause more problems than they solve.
you'd probably be offended if i said that every conservative had a gun rack and lived in a trailer. so i think the whiny liberal remark is uncalled for.
read my last post about isolationist prisons ... :)
peace out bro! ;) |
Hey mayun, I have a gun rack and live in a trailer... does that make me a conservative?? ;) hehe |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 08:37:42 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
For those whiny liberals, ask the victims of the crimes how they felt when they suffered and probably continue to do so after having the crimes commited on them. The victims that were not killed anyway. |
Do that, and all criminals would suffer death penalty.
The Code of Hammurabi still has its followers...
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 08:47:23 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Noone can ever give up HUMAN RIGHTS. What you probably mean is CIVIL RIGHTS, and that's okay for me.
I think it's NOT okay to let them not keep their bodies in shape, not okay to keep them from access to information sources other than the weather channel and Newt Gingrich lectures, not okay to let them live in tents at 128 degrees (the soldiers in IRAQ are there voluntarily).
I also don't think it is okay a Nazi-Sheriff can decide all these things. |
The things to which you object are not rights. They're privileges. TV and computers are a privilege that many people do without. Nomadic tribes in Africa live in tents and huts in desert conditions and are happy. The prisoners gave up those privileged comforts of western civilization when they chose to break the law.
Message edited by author 2007-02-22 08:48:10.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 08:48:12 AM · #33 |
| we jokingly call our jail here in harford county, maryland the Harford Hilton. They have it way too easy. |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 09:06:42 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
The things to which you object are not rights. They're privileges. TV and computers are a privilege that many people do without. Nomadic tribes in Africa live in tents and huts in desert conditions and are happy. The prisoners gave up those privileged comforts of western civilization when they chose to break the law. |
Nowhere did I say I want them to have computers or TV. And the nomades in africa are USED to live at that temperatures (also through genetic disposition)., while I doubt they are all happy all the time.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 09:14:42 AM · #35 |
We should just send all of our criminals off to an island somewhere, maybe someplace like Australia.
;-)
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 09:14:53 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
The things to which you object are not rights. They're privileges. TV and computers are a privilege that many people do without. Nomadic tribes in Africa live in tents and huts in desert conditions and are happy. The prisoners gave up those privileged comforts of western civilization when they chose to break the law. |
Nowhere did I say I want them to have computers or TV. And the nomades in africa are USED to live at that temperatures (also through genetic disposition)., while I doubt they are all happy all the time. |
No one is happy all the time in suburbia, either. So there you go.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 09:15:00 AM · #37 |
Ha! we do educate them in our prisons. They get full college degrees so they can go do better crimes and learn to get away with it.
Many run their crime syndicate from INSIDE where they have access to the kind of people they can recruit. Its an entirely different lifestyle that we get the honor of paying for both in cash and victims.
Many do heinous crimes to get back to the world they know, and secure their ability to stay. (this was explained to me by a prisoner a long time ago)
I'm all for this sherif's strong punishment methods. I think there needs to be more like it.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 09:30:00 AM · #38 |
It would be interesting to look at the 'results' of the 'conditioning' taking place in the jails by looking at the returnee rates. Just wondering if it is 80% or 90%.....! A 10-20% positive result should tell us that jails have never worked and never will.
Human rights....mmmmmmmmm what about victim rights? I must add that those murdered surely can not be entitled to human rights (because they have been brutilly murdred) so the human rights are reserved for those still alive to enjoy the rights bestowed upon them.
Seriously, one must be careful with so-called rights, I can not think of one right that is truely absolute.
As for our definition of criminal.... is it he who is doing or he who is caught and convicted? Who is the criminal? Just wondering how many thiefs are walking around on this earth, you know, the ones taking a pencil from his office to give to his son.... the one who 'uses' a minute-or-so to finish his watching the tennis or reading an article on the net before jumping right back into doing the job he is being paid to do. Or is theft reserved for those who steal more than a few minutes, a few pages, a few calls from the work phone...?
OK, I have no point. I am a little drunk and synical. Afterall, it is my birthday here in the East, far from home. It is my human right to talk shit every now and then. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 10:00:30 AM · #39 |
There is a little difference in the story and "the truth", but this does overall appear to be true...
//www.snopes.com/crime/deserts/pink.asp |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 10:05:20 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by eyewave:
I wished he was put in his jail for disregarding human rights. |
Exactly what human rights is he violating? I think criminals give up their human rights when they commit crimes. |
Convicted felons give up certain "civil" rights depending on the class of felony they commit. Human rights are never given up unless you are considered a terrorist. Murderers give up their right to live if convicted of a capitol crime. But very few murderers are executed. The vast majority are released after 10 to 20 years in prison.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 10:08:06 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Noone can ever give up HUMAN RIGHTS. What you probably mean is CIVIL RIGHTS, and that's okay for me.
I think it's NOT okay to let them not keep their bodies in shape, not okay to keep them from access to information sources other than the weather channel and Newt Gingrich lectures, not okay to let them live in tents at 128 degrees (the soldiers in IRAQ are there voluntarily).
|
My only concern is the 128 degrees they live in. And this mainly for the prisoners who elderly. You want cable and the choice of changing channels? Stay the hell out of jail.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 10:08:26 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by eyewave:
I wished he was put in his jail for disregarding human rights. |
Exactly what human rights is he violating? I think criminals give up their human rights when they commit crimes. |
Convicted felons give up certain "civil" rights depending on the class of felony they commit. Human rights are never given up unless you are considered a terrorist. Murderers give up their right to live if convicted of a capitol crime. But very few murderers are executed. The vast majority are released after 10 to 20 years in prison. |
Still, I don't see a definition of human rights or a specific delineation of which one's he's violating.
I'm not saying that he's NOT violating any, I just don't know which ones they are and who establishes them.
Expecting Matthew at any moment... It's afternoon in London, isn't it? :) |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 10:15:37 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
[quote=super-dave]
f
The US already have the most restrictive penal systems, still they are among the western nations with the highest crime rates. As far as I know, only Brazil and South Africa are worse. |
Spend some time in a Russian or Turkish prison. Or maybe you'd like to experience some justice in an Islamic country. As far as I know there are many countries with harsher prison conditions. In many countries prison is the least of your worries if you commit a crime. I think you have confused the numbers of inmates with your idea of restrictive. The US does have many people in prison. Mainly because of our stupid policies concerning drugs. The same money we spend on incarceration on trivial drug charges could be spent on drug treatment.
Now all of the above ignores our current policies concerning terrorists. That is an entirely different subject and deserves its own thread. Preferrably in rant. Where this one is headed. ;)
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 10:23:57 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
you'd probably be offended if i said that every conservative had a gun rack and lived in a trailer. so i think the whiny liberal remark is uncalled for.
|
He shouldn't be. I've got liberal, centrist, and conservative friends who have a gun rack and live in a trailer. I've got friends who simply can't be placed in a category. These comments are headed down the road to the "red state", "blue state" labels. You can't offend me by discussing my living conditions. But you'd better not classify me as red or blue in my presence. The last time the US used such classifications they were blue and gray. Over a half a million people died. The next time it might be 100 million or more. So lets all come together and sing kombaya (if I knew how to spell it) ;)
ehhehehehehe LOL
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 10:24:26 AM · #45 |
| The only other prison system I know anything about was in Honduras (and it could have changed) but there, the family of the incarcerated is responsible for feeding them. If you have no family nearby, or they can't afford it, you don't get food. |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 10:45:09 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by noraneko:
If I had to listen to Newt Gingrich lectures on tape, it would definitely keep me from coming back.
Seriously, is there any evidence that this method actually cuts down on the rate of repeat offenses? Or does it just enable this sheriff and his supporters to feel mighty and righteous? |
I suspect that there's not much difference in the re-offense rate from one type prison to the next. This type of treatment sits well with the majority of citizens that don't get placed in prison. So it's useful for re-election purposes. We had one of these sheriffs not far from  karmat. He ended up getting in trouble himself, best I remember. He painted all the walls pink! LOL
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 10:51:38 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
I have a friend who works for the homeless here in Ottawa. Quite a few of them commit petty crimes when winter sinks in so that they spend 3-6 months in jail. Why? They get nice warm accommodations and 3 meals a day, a library, hot showers, cable TV.... all on tax payers hard earned money. There's really something wrong with our system. |
Man, I thought Canada was a socialist country. I don't mind those people getting those perks as long as they're willing to do a little something to gain them. Most would rather not. But.... with just a little change in the way we do things they would have to work for those perks. The funny thing is they'd feel better about themselves.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 10:54:04 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by super-dave:
for all the wonderful liberal attitudes that we have, i do believe that the penal system in most western countries simply doesn't work. |
The US already have the most restrictive penal systems, still they are among the western nations with the highest crime rates. As far as I know, only Brazil and South Africa are worse. |
I'm making this even more off-topic, but I gotta defend my country (a little...it doesn't deserve much defending). ;)
I think you have to differentiate highest crime rates from penal systems. Although they are related, their rates can vary a lot. Brazil is a very violent country (getting worse everyday), but I would not put it in the top10 of highest crime rates. What happens is, crime is not punished in there. The U.S., on the other hand, has a higher crime rate, but people do get arrested and pay for their crime (mostly).
But as well it is not a country in the top 10. Those would be Colombia, South Africa, Venezuela, Russia, etc.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 11:23:12 AM · #49 |
Liberalism is a mental disorder - Michael Savage
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Originally posted by eyewave:
(the soldiers in Iraq are there voluntarily). |
Our soldiers made the choice to enlist and were sent to Iraq. These prisoners made the choice to do the crime and were sent to prison. Sounds voluntary to me. |
True in a way, but a) not every prisoner chose to commit a crime (as in every country there might be prisoners NOT guilty of the crime they were accused), others might not have had a choice (for example, having been forced by others) and b) probably very few prisoners knew about the inhumane conditions in this specific jail and c) the soldiers are paid for what they do (not meaning I want prisoners to get paid!) |
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 11:31:31 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Still, I don't see a definition of human rights or a specific delineation of which one's he's violating.
I'm not saying that he's NOT violating any, I just don't know which ones they are and who establishes them.
Expecting Matthew at any moment... It's afternoon in London, isn't it? :) |
Yep - I am a bit busy, so I'll be quick.
There is no single source of "human rights" - they are philosophically derived, often regarded as "self evident", usually determined according to prevailing morality, partly codified in various ways (eg constitutions, international agreements, conventions etc).
Taking the words "human rights" broadly, prisoners do not have a full complement: they have their right to freedom/liberty partially curtailed.
The issue here is largely to what degree there exists a right to a certain level of welfare, and whether a prisoner should lose that too.
It is almost certain that such a right does exist in our modern moral conscience: no one suggests that the state has no obligations to prisoners at all (such as the obligation to provide food). [in times past, this was not the case: prisoners with no money to pay for food were given cells with windows opening onto the street to beg in order to eat - moral standards and "rights" change from place to place and from time to time]
A right to welfare is usually referenced as against the level of welfare prevalent in society (so comparisons to soldiers or people in Africa are largely irrelevant). AFAIK, this is the justification for providing cable tv in the US to prisoners: in the US, people tend to have living standards that include cable tv as a minimum (like electricity, heating, plumbing etc). There are also practical advantages (such as pacifying prisoners).
Should a prisoner suffer a reduced complement of rights? I am not sure: I think that this largely depends on the purposes for which imprisonment is deployed. The main reasons are protection for the public, punishment for the offender, vengeance for the victim, rehabilitation of the offender. My natural inclination is towards emphasis on protection for the public and rehabilitation of the offender: vengeance and punishment are viscerally gratifying, but financially and socially unproductive.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 01:29:16 PM EDT.
