The Prison Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Prison Thread

Domini Cane: Oct 21, 2002; You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day. You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked.

joat mon posted:

The judge's inaction resonates with me in a different way. Judges are granted special, almost unique powers of discretion under our rules; and she has specific discretion to mitigate sentences like this. She failed to exercise that discretion. Cop-outs like "I don't want to be the 13th juror" ring as hollow as "I was just following orders."

I understand your point. I disagree with it because it is fallacious.
Laws in a republic or democracy have the implicit support of the people because they voted for the law makers. The is fundamentally different than the Nazi defense because "orders" are not "laws." If you find laws to be immoral then protest, move, or run for office. You are free to depart from this system. On the other hand, while you're here and while I'm here I am bound by these laws until they change.

There is a time and a place to use judicial discretion but America was founded with the idea that branches of government would not overstep their assigned roles. Checks and balances are the ordinary course of running a government and we cannot live and operate under exceptions to those rules all the time. The amount of case law affirming the virtual sanctify of jury deliberations and jury decisions is mountainous.

My job is to prosecute cases by presenting evidence (not to seek convictions). The Defense attorney advocates for his client. The judge is the trier of the legal arguments. The jury is the trier of the facts. Each role is distinct and separate. The jury cannot demand inadmissible evidence. The judge should not invade the province of the jury. That's not the judge's job.

joat mon posted:

"But the legislatures have decided the potential threat to society outweighs the rights of individual offenders once they have been adjudicated." is a slightly longer way of saying "I was just following orders." If you've been part of the system any time at all, you know that LWOP law wasn't the product of a rational, deliberative process, it was a misdirected knee-jerk reaction to something bad that happened, coupled with the fact that "get tough on crime" (no matter the cost) will always get you votes.
e.g., What is the risk to society of a person who has 5 grams of crack (and two drug (even simple possession) priors) that justiifes making LWOP the only possible punishment?

That is the risk of any form of republican or democratic system of government. Each country has different rules. Our country has decided X, their country has decided Y, another has decided Z. If you do not like X, Y, or Z then actively seek to change it.

joat mon posted:

If that kid is still a sociopathic monster at 34 (pretty much guaranteed after being raised to adulthood in prison) he won't get paroled. Yes, people do get paroled and commit terrible crimes; but 99%+ don't. That balance of "how many errors on granting parole are acceptable vs. never letting anyone out of prison, ever" is another question that will not get a rational, deliberative hearing in a Legislature.

That is why we give judges lots of money, lots of respect, lots of power, and lots of discretion. So they will use their discretion. If the judge was sure that in the remaining 50-60 years of that 16 year-old's life he could never be fit for release, she should have made that decision and stated her reason. That, too, would be an exercise of her discretion. If you're going to abdicate the discretion that is a judge's raison d'etre and fob off your responsibilites on "the legislature" you're in the wrong job.

The Constitution requires the judge to follows the laws and respect the jury's decision subject to certain narrowly defined exceptions. They take an oath to do that. If her discretion is different than yours it doesn't mean she didn't use her discretion.

Lyesh posted:

Why is it that other countries seem to do fine with not putting "sociopathic monsters" away for life without parole? Every other first-world country does this, and NONE of them have huge crime waves because of it.

I agree with Poop

poopinmymouth posted:

Arguably because the US is unique in being able to create truely sociopathic monsters because of all it�s other problems. I completely agree we need to do away with lifetime sentences, but it needs to come with other things that prevent such situations. Social services, safety nets, narrowed income inequality, etc.

Plus the law of sovereign nations is solely in the hands of their own citizenry.

# ? Sep 17, 2010 18:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 11:30

mew force shoelace: Dec 13, 2009; by Ozmaugh

I love that at some point American exceptionalism turned into this thing where Americans believe America is exceptionally awful.

It is a weird an unexpected twist in patriotism.

# ? Sep 17, 2010 19:02

BrawndoTQ: Oct 18, 2001

Domini Cane posted:

I understand your point. I disagree with it because it is fallacious.
Laws in a republic or democracy have the implicit support of the people because they voted for the law makers. The is fundamentally different than the Nazi defense because "orders" are not "laws."

I'd be willing to bet that it was illegal to disobey an order in Nazi Germany.

Domini Cane posted:

If you find laws to be immoral then protest, move, or run for office. You are free to depart from this system. On the other hand, while you're here and while I'm here I am bound by these laws until they change.

The argument isn't if we are bound to them. We know we're all bound to them. The argument is whether or not they are moral and just.

What if slavery was still legal and the judge had the authority to override a sentence that would send an escaped slave back to its owner, but didn't because she didn't want to play the 13th juror?

# ? Sep 17, 2010 19:52

21stCentury: Jan 4, 2009; by angerbot

You know, I'd say that the only thing that's done differently in the United States to account for "truely sociopathic monsters" is, ironically, how criminals are treated.

There's something a bit backwards about a system that's the only one that can contain monsters if it's also the only system that can make them.

Heck, even if you agree with that, most cases in which "truely sociopathic monsters" are put in the system aren't a product of the prison system.

# ? Sep 17, 2010 20:40

Domini Cane: Oct 21, 2002; You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day. You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked.

21stCentury posted:

You know, I'd say that the only thing that's done differently in the United States to account for "truely sociopathic monsters" is, ironically, how criminals are treated.

There's something a bit backwards about a system that's the only one that can contain monsters if it's also the only system that can make them.

Heck, even if you agree with that, most cases in which "truely sociopathic monsters" are put in the system aren't a product of the prison system.

There is a book called "On Killing" by an army head shrinker named Lt. Col. David Grossman and he makes a compelling argument that American culture is unique with regard to how violence and criminality. The primary premise of the books is that man is hardwired to not kill other men. Additionally, men can be taught to kill other men through a combination of factors for purposes of military and law enforcement. However, the same techniques used by the military are being adopted by entertainment to enable children to lose their value for human life and become more violent.

# ? Sep 18, 2010 00:00

Lyesh: Apr 9, 2003

Domini Cane posted:

There is a book called "On Killing" by an army head shrinker named Lt. Col. David Grossman and he makes a compelling argument that American culture is unique with regard to how violence and criminality. The primary premise of the books is that man is hardwired to not kill other men. Additionally, men can be taught to kill other men through a combination of factors for purposes of military and law enforcement. However, the same techniques used by the military are being adopted by entertainment to enable children to lose their value for human life and become more violent.

But there has been a steep drop in the American violent crime rate that occurred just as violent video games were getting big. There is also a lack of violence in other cultures that are permeated with these kinds of games. I don't see how that thesis holds much water at all. Is there any kind of statistical argument made?

# ? Sep 18, 2010 00:05

AmbassadorFriendly: Nov 19, 2008; Don't leave me hangin'

brizna posted:

What if slavery was still legal and the judge had the authority to override a sentence that would send an escaped slave back to its owner, but didn't because she didn't want to play the 13th juror?

Judges rarely have this power. They do sentencing, however, and if you're an elected judge, you're going to be tough on crime, because you want to keep your job, and the public loves someone that's tough on crime. And at the end of the day the judge has to follow the law, no matter how unjust it may be, so a lot of their decisions really are out of their hands. If not, they'll get a judge who does, the judges higher in the food chain will disagree with them and overturn them, etc. Remember, almost all judges on Supreme Courts are nominated and confirmed by people who have been elected, so they pick out people who follow the laws they pass.

That's not to say that judges do not have wide discretion to do things that may gently caress over defendants. For example, many federal judges do not allow expert testimony on such factors as cross-racial identification, the effect of weapons on memory, and the lack of correlation between confidence and accuracy in eyewitness testimony, and they are allowed wide discretion to do so. They'll only be overturned for an abuse of that discretion, which is a pretty hard standard to meet. There are "crime control" judges like Scalia who don't give much of a poo poo about privacy.

Are there overzealous and immoral prosecutors? Yes. I believe most of them aren't like that and do what is legal and ethical. But the things they are allowed to do, the legal things, are far too broad. Those are statutes, stuff passed by legislatures, legislatures that are elected by people. Juries are also comprised of these people. They don't have a lot of specialized knowledge that a lot of us have about the criminal justice and penal system and the lovely way that it works. I've always been of the opinion that the more you learn about it, the more you'll see how hosed up it is and you'll be a better voter and a better jury member.

# ? Sep 18, 2010 00:22

21stCentury: Jan 4, 2009; by angerbot

Domini Cane posted:

There is a book called "On Killing" by an army head shrinker named Lt. Col. David Grossman and he makes a compelling argument that American culture is unique with regard to how violence and criminality. The primary premise of the books is that man is hardwired to not kill other men. Additionally, men can be taught to kill other men through a combination of factors for purposes of military and law enforcement. However, the same techniques used by the military are being adopted by entertainment to enable children to lose their value for human life and become more violent.

Well, aside from the disproven and ludicrous link between criminality and violent video games, there's also the fact that just north of the border, Canada lies without any serious crime problems, without a completely hosed up prison system and with a sociopathic monsters. Serial killers and such.

I mean, I agree that there are a lot of differences in attitudes between America and Canada, but i disagree that american culture can create "worse criminals" than those found in Canada. More criminals? Sure. Worse criminals? Criminals that can only be contained in prisons where they are completely isolated from any and all human contact? Criminals that can only be tamed by putting them in a "rape or be raped" situation?

JLWOP in America isn't justified in the least. JLWOP is done only to make money and convince voters that you're tough on crime. It doesn't protect anyone, it doesn't save anyone and it doesn't help anyone.

# ? Sep 18, 2010 03:17

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Even if we have less crime, a lot of Canadians have the same views about crime and punishment. There's been mandatory minimums for at least 10 years now for some crimes, and currently a push for higher mandatory minimums because a killer pled guilty to manslaughter after a mistrial for murder, and thus was only punished for manslaughter (his sentence was 14 years anyway).

I don't understand why people are so quick to jump on criminals and defense attorneys when they get off on technicalities. Those technicalities are a very important part of a functioning judicial system, and if there's anyone to be mad at, be mad at the people behaving inappropriately and therefore allowing it to happen: the investigators and prosecutors.

# ? Sep 19, 2010 01:33

lonelywurm: Aug 10, 2009

PT6A posted:

I don't understand why people are so quick to jump on criminals and defense attorneys when they get off on technicalities. Those technicalities are a very important part of a functioning judicial system, and if there's anyone to be mad at, be mad at the people behaving inappropriately and therefore allowing it to happen: the investigators and prosecutors.

A friend of mine had this problem really, really badly before I made a concerted effort to discuss the situation with her.

I was a bit sad I had to, since her father was a criminal defense attorney for a number of years before moving to personal injury, and I know he didn't fill her head with that poo poo.

# ? Sep 19, 2010 02:42

Beaters: Jun 28, 2004; SOWING SEEDS
OF MISERY SINCE 1937
FRYING LIKE A FRITO
IN THE SKILLET
OF HADES
SINCE 1975

PT6A posted:

[...]
I don't understand why people are so quick to jump on criminals and defense attorneys when they get off on technicalities. Those technicalities are a very important part of a functioning judicial system, and if there's anyone to be mad at, be mad at the people behaving inappropriately and therefore allowing it to happen: the investigators and prosecutors.

Ever notice how relatively little people are upset by prosecutorial misconduct? This is the other side of the coin. Despite having the deck stacked in their favor, prosecutors get relatively little criticism for blatant misconduct in cases.

Same goes for cops, especially undercover cops. One of the things that has always bothered me about undercover cops is that it's practically a given that they lie as a matter of course to targets and their associates. They are QED habitual liars, one might argue pathological liars. Yet the prosecutors use their testimony to build cases. Juries just don't seem to care that they are taking the testimony of professional, habitual liars seriously. I know it happens, but I just can't wrap my mind around that level of credulity.

# ? Sep 19, 2010 23:34

AmbassadorFriendly: Nov 19, 2008; Don't leave me hangin'

Beaters posted:

Same goes for cops, especially undercover cops. One of the things that has always bothered me about undercover cops is that it's practically a given that they lie as a matter of course to targets and their associates. They are QED habitual liars, one might argue pathological liars. Yet the prosecutors use their testimony to build cases. Juries just don't seem to care that they are taking the testimony of professional, habitual liars seriously. I know it happens, but I just can't wrap my mind around that level of credulity.

I don't really think undercover cops are a problem. That's like saying actors are habitual, pathological liars. Just because they lie as part of their job, it doesn't mean they lie about everything else. Honestly that's some of the best evidence you can get outside of physical evidence. It's sustained eyewitness testimony that can usually be corroborated with other evidence.

Now criminal informants on the other hand, that's where you have a liar and you're asking him to tell the truth, but if he lies then he gets more out of it. The situation should be that you use the criminal informant so that you get enough corroborating evidence that you don't have to use the criminal informant at the trial, but they end up testifying a lot. It's usually easy to get search warrants with criminal informants as well.

# ? Sep 20, 2010 06:32

HidingFromGoro: Jun 5, 2006

Here's the thing with LWOP (and especially JLWOP). You lose the best way to control an inmate. The last thing you want as a prison administrator is a guy who feels like he has nothing left to lose. LWOP guys, especially younger ones, are actively recruited by gangs (assuming they have the physical wherewithal); and the sooner after they get to the tier the better since it's still sinking in that they're going to die in prison, are still angry about it, and thinking about what kind of time they want to do.* And getting paroled out of a straight-life isn't some sort of cakewalk either. I get what people are saying, that some guys are so bad they shouldn't be let out, but it's not like straight-life dudes are just waltzing through a parole board and getting out. The board is allowed to take into consideration the severity of the offense, aggravating factors, and the carceral jacket among other things. Inmates know this so that's why you see guys work their programs and stay out of trouble for that 1% chance they might have in 15 years.

A lost cause in many cases, but no matter. In prison, you can discover resolve you never knew you had.

The second to last thing a prison administrator wants is an elderly inmate with staggering medical costs and who can't be paroled out to save money. Whenever you see the figures of costing $30-$50K/year to lock someone up, that is assuming a healthy 30-year old man without special housing or SHU needs. As inmates get older they get a lot more expensive, especially considering chronic illness and eventually hospice care. So they will try to parole out people who are too old or sick "welp, you need 24/7 hospice care for the remaining 18 months of your life, lucky you we're letting you out. btw good lucking getting insurance, lol." The stories I posted earlier include people trying to refuse parole so that they can die in prison and not bankrupt their families in their final days. That says a lot about America right there. Maybe for a different thread I guess.

And in any case when a judge really wants to make you go away (or punish you for appealing), they can hand out multiple life sentences, or sentences of hundreds or even thousands of years. This is done as a hedge against possible future legislation against LWOP or death penalty, also to "send a message." Longest upheld sentence was over 12,000 years (500 years were removed via appeal on double-jeopardy grounds). There was a mailman in Spain with over 200,000 but it was overturned. So it's not like if we get rid of LWOP we won't have a way to ensure people never get out of prison, one guy got 25 consecutive life sentences with additional years on top, for hunting down illegal immigrants, killing them, and burying them in his yard. But we still have people getting 700 years, a thousand, 12 thousand, for things other than mass murder (such as robbery). Those kinds of sentences are grandstanding, send-a-message, and tough-on-crime reelection bids; but so is LWOP and it's a lot more common. Goes to show you the posturing and spectacle of the System; the technology to keep someone alive for 12,000 years will never exist (and certainly not within that inmate's lifetime), and even if was it would go to Bill Gates and not some dude in a Southern prison. Not to mention the legal system will be unrecognizably different or nonexistent in that time, or if humans even exist they may be even more different from us than cavemen/Neanderthal. If you're going to give someone 500 years or some such you might as well be digging up their skeleton after they die and putting it back in prison, like they did when putting the skeleton of that medieval king (or whoever it was) on trial in that one painting.

* another reason why military prisons use multi-stage indoctrination / phased socialization programs. These are used to a limited extent in some state prisons, but it can be cost-prohibitive and massive overcrowding (+ ineffective oversight + staff misconduct) renders it mostly useless anyway.

# ? Sep 21, 2010 00:59

HidingFromGoro: Jun 5, 2006

PT6A posted:

I don't understand why people are so quick to jump on criminals and defense attorneys when they get off on technicalities. Those technicalities are a very important part of a functioning judicial system, and if there's anyone to be mad at, be mad at the people behaving inappropriately and therefore allowing it to happen: the investigators and prosecutors.

Think about how many times you're exposed to "obviously guilty and bad man got off on a technicality" in movies and TV before you're even old enough to have any serious interaction with police or a criminal prosecutor. Add to that "my stuff got vandalized/stolen, I called the cops and they didn't/couldn't/wouldn't even do anything!" There's a subconscious element too, everybody knows they broke the law at some point, whether it was speeding or drunk-driving or smoking weed (or whatever) and they know they didn't get caught. So it translates. But being something folks tend not to think about in great detail or with their college skills or whatever, they might not make the jump to say hey a rape or murder investigation is taken a lot more seriously than my traffic or possession.

I mean, what happens on a cop show or cop movie? They're yelling at Dirty Harry because he violated rights, but Harry is saying, look gently caress his rights, he was killing folks, it was the .44 or nothing. And it's "right" in the context of the movie. Cops were the enemy in Death Wish movies, they were trying to arrest Paul Kersey for killing muggers. The muggers raped his wife and his daughter and killed them both, and the cops weren't around. Would you want the rapist+killer of your wife & daughter killed? Of course you would. Even in non-cop movies like Rambo 2 (which is like the definition of action movie for an entire generation). They tried to tie his hands, tried to neuter him, so he had to break the rules to do the right thing. There's even dialogue explicitly saying this "do we get to win this time, sir?" What's the narrative of Vietnam (and sometimes Iraq/Afghanistan)? If we didn't have to follow these bullshit rules we could win, and do the right thing. The actual main villain (CIA guy) in Rambo even says "what do you want to do? bomb Hanoi?" and it's presented as the correct choice, even if only because the smarmy apparatchik is mocking it. There is definitely a sentiment that wars, whether real wars, drug wars, or crime wars, can be won if we just disregard the stupid rules and Get It Done.

I mean it's a cliche by now, "give me your badge, this is out of line!" *cop goes rogue, saves the day, kills evildoers*

So if someone sees that a lot growing up, it's understandable they have that view of "technicalities."

# ? Sep 21, 2010 01:32

homerlaw: Sep 21, 2008; Plants are the best ergo Sylvari=Best

HidingFromGoro posted:

you might as well be digging up their skeleton after they die and putting it back in prison, like they did when putting the skeleton of that medieval king (or whoever it was) on trial in that one painting.

It was a pope

Pope Formosus

# ? Sep 21, 2010 02:51

HidingFromGoro: Jun 5, 2006

homerlaw posted:

It was a pope

Pope Formosus

Right and that's not much more ridiculous or pointless than giving someone a twelve thousand year prison sentence- maybe even less stupid, considering how far we've come since "ye olden days."

# ? Sep 21, 2010 03:29

CRM 114: Sep 21, 2010; by T. Finn

HidingFromGoro posted:

Think about how many times you're exposed to "obviously guilty and bad man got off on a technicality" in movies and TV before you're even old enough to have any serious interaction with police or a criminal prosecutor. Add to that "my stuff got vandalized/stolen, I called the cops and they didn't/couldn't/wouldn't even do anything!" There's a subconscious element too, everybody knows they broke the law at some point, whether it was speeding or drunk-driving or smoking weed (or whatever) and they know they didn't get caught. So it translates. But being something folks tend not to think about in great detail or with their college skills or whatever, they might not make the jump to say hey a rape or murder investigation is taken a lot more seriously than my traffic or possession.

I mean, what happens on a cop show or cop movie? They're yelling at Dirty Harry because he violated rights, but Harry is saying, look gently caress his rights, he was killing folks, it was the .44 or nothing. And it's "right" in the context of the movie. Cops were the enemy in Death Wish movies, they were trying to arrest Paul Kersey for killing muggers. The muggers raped his wife and his daughter and killed them both, and the cops weren't around. Would you want the rapist+killer of your wife & daughter killed? Of course you would. Even in non-cop movies like Rambo 2 (which is like the definition of action movie for an entire generation). They tried to tie his hands, tried to neuter him, so he had to break the rules to do the right thing. There's even dialogue explicitly saying this "do we get to win this time, sir?" What's the narrative of Vietnam (and sometimes Iraq/Afghanistan)? If we didn't have to follow these bullshit rules we could win, and do the right thing. The actual main villain (CIA guy) in Rambo even says "what do you want to do? bomb Hanoi?" and it's presented as the correct choice, even if only because the smarmy apparatchik is mocking it. There is definitely a sentiment that wars, whether real wars, drug wars, or crime wars, can be won if we just disregard the stupid rules and Get It Done.

I mean it's a cliche by now, "give me your badge, this is out of line!" *cop goes rogue, saves the day, kills evildoers*

So if someone sees that a lot growing up, it's understandable they have that view of "technicalities."

Long time reader first time poster, etc...

Where I live there is no 'jail' like you think of it, upon being remanded to custody you go to prison, real, honest to god, prison. Depending on what you are accused of it could be a nice minimum security work farm or maximum security general population.

After reading this thread and some of HidingFromGoro's other threads over the past few months I realise I have no real credibility here, but will share my experience.

One day the police came to my place of work, I was arrested, then charged at the station. The following day I faced a magistrate, entered a not guilty plea, bail was denied and I was remanded to custody. Stand on the line, strip, squat, it was a blur.

The best thing that ever happened to me was being 'buddied' with a prisoner in his early forties. One of the most genuine people I have ever met, layed down the rules and explained just how bad things could be if I did not adhere to them. Never asked what I was accused of (I told him later), never asked if I did it. He just saw a twenty year old facing serious time and did his best to ease me into the reality that I was facing.

The biggest hurdle was the staff. Regardless of my innocence or guilt, I was there so they treated me exactly as the other prisoners. Like I was already convicted.

I guess the point is that the one person who really helped me and guided me through those first few weeks was a man who had done a terrible, terrible thing. While the people who were supposed to be there to protect and supervise us just assumed I was garbage.

Assumption of guilt is simply dehumanising.

I was extremely happy two years ago when I found out that the state now has a dedicated remand facility. I hope it eases the transition for the new boys, but I can't help but think they will no longer have the greatest benefit I did.

A long term inmate to ease them into their situation.

Our system is much better than the one you face in the U.S., but I feel bad that the best friend of an eighteen year old facing serious time will be another eighteen year old facing serious time.

# ? Sep 23, 2010 11:44

baquerd: Jul 2, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

CRM 114 posted:

The best thing that ever happened to me was being 'buddied' with a prisoner in his early forties. One of the most genuine people I have ever met, layed down the rules and explained just how bad things could be if I did not adhere to them.

If you feel OK to talk about it, what were some of these rules and can you possibly tell us the country? Could you tell us about daily conditions?

# ? Sep 23, 2010 11:55

CRM 114: Sep 21, 2010; by T. Finn

baquerd posted:

If you feel OK to talk about it, what were some of these rules and can you possibly tell us the country? Could you tell us about daily conditions?

I feel OK, posted in an internet forum, might vary depending where you are, TLDR version.

Heaps, but the big ones are:

*Everyone is due respect.
*You are here do your own time, find a routine and stick to it.
*^You do not need 'help'.
*Be clean, you live with other people.
*It is not your business. Well, but... Still not your business.
*Be patient.
*What happens on the boat stays on the boat.
*Never get into debt. Nothing is free.
*Don't do drugs. If you are already an addict remember *Never get into debt.
*If you gently caress with people they will gently caress you up.
*You might be able to hear but that dosn't mean you need to listen.

*Respect privacy.

I left that one last because it might seem stupid, but whatever privacy you have is very precious due to scarcity.

As for conditions, they were fair. Food was reasonable, tv in our cell, lots of excercise and activities/education.

Not really qualified to say, I only spent 162 days inside before being released. Did not want to sound like a knarled old convict, I apologise if I gave you the wrong impression.

Still, I was very happy to have been buddied with an old boy in those first two months.

# ? Sep 23, 2010 12:33

HidingFromGoro: Jun 5, 2006

St. Louis: When judges here sentence convicted criminals, a new and unusual variable is available for them to consider: what a given punishment will cost the State of Missouri.

quote:
The practice has touched off a sharp debate. It has been lauded nationally by a disparate group of defense lawyers and fiscal conservatives, who consider it an overdue tool that will force judges to ponder alternatives to prison more seriously.

But critics � prosecutors especially � dismiss the idea as unseemly. They say that the cost of punishment is an irrelevant consideration when deciding a criminal�s fate and that there is a risk of overlooking the larger social costs of crime.
Texas: Kid on death row was put there by the actual murderer. the murderer (who killed his entire family) confesses on his death bed. That was 10 years ago and guess who's still on death row.
Arnold vetoes CA bill banning shackles for pregnant inmates.
Lewisburg holds some of the most habitually violent inmates in the federal system. Nevertheless, they've been putting them in them 2 to a cell in the SHU, leaving at least one guard seriously injured and three inmates dead. The article reads like a laundry list of things not to do (especially in a SHU); and even though its (unsurprisingly) being done to save money, one inmate sums it up best:

quote:
�A single cell would be cheaper than what they�ve spent in hospital bills and funerals.�
Outreach workers, inmates, businessmen, activists, and ex-cons join forces in Minnesota to keep teens out of adult prisons; but face an uphill battle.

quote:
"We didn't treat him like an adult before the crime. Why after?"

quote:
"Study after study, including from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Brookings Institution, has found that kids put into the adult system are more likely to reoffend than similar kids kept in the juvenile system," said Eric Solomon, spokesman for the Campaign for Youth Justice based in Washington. They are also 36 times more likely to commit suicide in adult jails than are youth housed in juvenile facilities, he said.

The article also mentions a line of thinking I've advocated (along with others like me)for years- that most of the people you put in are going to get out one day, so best to think about what kind of person you want coming out.
Collateral Costs: Incarceration�s Effect on Economic Mobility
England+Wales has one of the highest incarceration rates in Europe at 153 per 100K population (USA = 756). (source)
Voices from solitary (pro read):

quote:
I am writing today from an actual mainline! How about that? I was transferred to Delano-Kern Valley State Prison Transitional Housing Unit last Monday. As soon as I got here the handcuffs came off and I was able to have movement without restraints. It felt a little weird and yet very exhilarating. It�s still a bit restrictive as it�s a level 4 mainline (maximum security). We are fed in our cells, but have unrestricted yard time and dayroom time. It�s not much, but even just a little is a whole lot more than I have had over the past 16 years. Showers are done unrestricted and much longer than the 3 minutes I�ve been accustomed to and I got a razor issued to me for about 3 hours in my cell and can take my time and shave correctly. We had chicken last night and I actually got a full quarter of a chicken with the bone. I was in absolute ecstasy as I have eaten only chicken patties (processed) and to beat all, the CO gave me a second tray! I am still confined to quarters until I go to classification which will be either this Wednesday or next. I can have phone calls, quarterly packages and contact visits. Is that cool or what?

quote:
I spent the better part of 2008 and part of 2009 in a cell without any glass in a 2 foot by 4 foot window frame. I had to use the blanket I was issued as a window covering. I slept with all my clothes on a bare mattress so I could have two sheets to cover myself with. I also lived with huge cockroaches and mice and had to secure my food items by hanging them in a t-shirt from the ceiling vent to keep bugs and rodents out. I�ve had to drink water with toxic levels of arsenic and selenium well above federal standards. If this is not torture, I don�t know what is.

http://bit.ly/d4lZAU
http://bit.ly/dnpJlC
More trouble with prison recycling programs: one prison was exposing workers (inmates and guards) to levels of lead, cadmium, beryllium, and other heavy metals more than 450 times higher than federal workplace-safety regulations allow. Also they weren't giving the guards hazardous-duty pay or goggles/face shields to the inmates who were smashing up CRT screens with hammers. Some of the H-D pay has been backpaid as part of a settlement, although the dollar amounts of the larger settlements are still a secret.
Former head of Colorado DOC: "Our corrections system is the most effective human-rights tool we have in Afghanistan"
Oregon: $2.5M budget cut to close prison and lay off 63 workers- but wait, there's more:

quote:
For the first time in its history, Oregon will shut down an operating prison as part of a $2.5 million budget cut that lays off 63 people, relocates 120 prisoners and ends alcohol and drug treatment for 50 of those inmates.
Jena, LA: "Drug bust" may have been racist revenge on Jena Six supporters.

quote:
The Sheriff called the mobilization �Operation Third Option,� and he said it was about fighting drugs. However, community members say that Sheriff Franklin�s actions are part of an orchestrated revenge for the local civil rights protests that won freedom for six Black high school students � known internationally as the Jena Six
PA juveniles seek relief from JLWOP, both for themselves and throughout the country.

quote:
According to 2008 state records, the most recent available, 444 inmates are in prison for life for crimes they committed before their 18th birthdays. However, Bradley Bridge, a defense attorney and reformer, says 2010's total tops 470.

quote:
Bridge and others say state lawmakers should establish a minimum age under which juveniles cannot be tried as adults or charged in a slaying. There now is no minimum; many states set 15 or 16 as the benchmark age.

Critics counter that some kids commit such heinous crimes that they deserve to lose their freedom forever.

Also the US is the only country in the world that uses JLWOP.

quote:
And Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, founder of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers, said juvenile-justice reformers suffer "brain overclaim syndrome," a concept popularized in 2006 by a University of Pennsylvania professor who argued that juvenile defenders too often and improperly cite neuroscience to pardon criminal responsibility.

# ? Oct 7, 2010 20:53

HidingFromGoro: Jun 5, 2006

ACLU report and Brennan Center report on the resurgence of debtor's prison.

# ? Oct 7, 2010 20:53

Tempora Mutantur: Feb 22, 2005

HidingFromGoro posted:

Arnold vetoes CA bill banning shackles for pregnant inmates.

Ugh, the comments on this article are infuriating. So many people in this country are so hosed, both in terms of being crushed by the system and in terms of being subhuman shitstains who think being tough on crime works.

# ? Oct 8, 2010 16:20

Sleepy Beef: Oct 2, 2009; by Fistgrrl

HidingFromGoro posted:

Drinking selenium

Good god I bet that guy is going to loving stink. When you drink selenium, since it is so similar to sulfur, it messes with the bonds of your sweat and replaces the sulfur in your sweat with selenium. It makes you reek like rotten eggs and dead rat's rear end, and it doesn't go away anytime soon. It's also readily identifiable, and will probably ruin this guy's life since he would probably have people sitting next to him on the bus literally throwing up from the stench (if he ever gets out). SUE SUE SUE!

# ? Oct 8, 2010 17:10

flux_core: Feb 26, 2007; Not recommended on thin sections.

I'm still shocked that heavy metals being powdered by prisoners was allowed... by the guard's unions.

Yeah let's breathe and wear heavy metal powder home on our clothes and in our lungs but wash off tear gas and pepper spray! Hoo rah!

# ? Oct 8, 2010 17:28

HidingFromGoro: Jun 5, 2006

flux_core posted:

I'm still shocked that heavy metals being powdered by prisoners was allowed... by the guard's unions.

Yeah let's breathe and wear heavy metal powder home on our clothes and in our lungs but wash off tear gas and pepper spray! Hoo rah!

Don't forget that prisons have also been caught doing this next to day care centers.

# ? Oct 10, 2010 10:50

HidingFromGoro: Jun 5, 2006

Sleepy Beef posted:

SUE SUE SUE!

Sorry, the Prison Litigation Reform Act basically ensures he'll never be allowed to. Thanks Bill Clinton!

# ? Oct 10, 2010 10:55

HidingFromGoro: Jun 5, 2006

Toxic Persons

New research shows precisely how the prison-to-poverty cycle does its damage.

quote:

In 1980, one in 10 black high-school dropouts were incarcerated. By 2008, that number was 37 percent. Western and Pettit calculated that if current incarceration trends hold, fully 68 percent of African-American male high school dropouts born from 1975 to 1979 (at the start of the upward trend in incarceration rates) will spend time living in prison at some point in their lives, as the chart below shows.

# ? Oct 11, 2010 23:11

HidingFromGoro: Jun 5, 2006

Another dm repost

dm posted:

supreme court time for california

quote:

On June 14, 2010, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger�s challenge of a court order requiring the state to reduce its prison population by 46,000 inmates. California argues that the panel of federal court judges exceeded its powers relative to the state government by mandating a reduction in inmates.

Behind this legal issue lies an important aspect of the crisis of US capitalism�the decades-long attack on constitutional protections and the movement to draconian criminal sentencing, which have led to overcrowding of prisons to a point that is economically unsustainable. The court�s decision in Schwarzenegger v. Plata could have a significant impact on the ruling class�s ability to manage the economic and political costs of its bloated system of domestic repression.

The case centers on one of the most obvious consequences of prison overcrowding: inadequate inmate health care. Schwarzenegger�s move to the US Supreme Court is the culmination of almost a decade of litigation over health care in California�s prison system.

The state�s prisons are packed to nearly double the inmate population for which they were designed. The court order that is being appealed requires the state to reduce its prison overcrowding to 137.5 percent of design capacity.

The suit, initially brought by the Prison Law Institute in Oakland, California, in April 2001 on behalf of Marciano Plata and several other prisoners, alleged that California prisons were in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, which bans �cruel and unusual punishment.� Plata has since become the largest-ever prison class action lawsuit.

A settlement agreement was reached in 2002 that required the state Department of Corrections to address problematic medical care policies and procedures and provide timely access to adequate health care. The settlement gave the state ample time to implement the needed changes, but also empowered an independent medical panel to audit the progress. The issue appeared to be resolved.

Although the dot.com bubble had burst by 2002, the state was still solvent. At that time, it planned to resolve the issue by continuing the prison building and incarceration boom it had pioneered decades earlier.

By 2002, California�s prison population had ballooned from fewer than 30,000 to well over 170,000 in a mere 30 years. Over a 23-year period, under both Democratic and Republican governors and with a Democratic-dominated legislature, California erected 23 prisons, each costing roughly $100 million annually to operate. In the same period, the state added just one campus to its university system. California now has 33 prisons in total.

By 2005, the state economy was moving into serious crisis. The real estate bubble that had followed the dot-com bubble was beginning to deflate. The state had failed to fulfill the settlement agreement. In response, the Prison Law Institute petitioned the court to appoint a receiver if the state could not show good cause for the failure. In May 2005, Thelton Henderson, the federal district court judge overseeing Plata, issued his own findings of fact detailing the state of prison health care.

He described the situation in California prisons as �horrifying� and �shocking,� noting expert analysis revealing widespread medical malpractice and neglect. One such finding determined that an inmate in one of California�s prisons needlessly dies every six to seven days due to grossly deficient medical care. A federal receiver was assigned to wrest control of the prison health system from the state.

By 2007, there was general nervousness about inflated home values throughout the state. Nonetheless, Governor Schwarzenegger and a bipartisan coalition in the legislature approved Assembly Bill 900�a $7.4 billion prison bond package for 53,000 new prison beds. At the time, 17,000 of the 173,000 inmates in the prison system were being housed in gymnasiums, day rooms, classrooms and other areas not designed as dormitories.

Federal Judges Henderson and Lawrence Karlton�hearing a similar case on the prison mental health care system named for its lead plaintiff, Ralph Coleman�were not impressed and said the state�s prison expansion plan could actually worsen conditions because it simply added beds without new staff.

Five years had passed without state compliance. Frustrated, the judges ruled�on the strength of a rarely used 1995 federal law�that a three-judge panel should be formed to consider imposing population limit to spur the long-awaited reforms. In a written statement, Schwarzenegger said that although he would appeal the ruling, he was confident that his efforts to reduce overcrowding would eventually succeed and a mandatory population cap would not be needed.

The financial meltdown of 2008 further exacerbated the problem. Pressure from the federal judiciary to reform the system or release prisoners was compounded by a deep, seemingly endless budget crisis. State unemployment rates skyrocketed, hundreds of thousands of homes were slated for foreclosure, tax revenues dried up, and the most basic public needs were sacrificed. Yet, at each budget session, the political will to significantly cut the state�s bloated prison system never materialized.

In his 2010 State of the State address, Governor Schwarzenegger called for the privatization of the entire prison system.

On January 12, 2010, the three-judge panel issued the now-contested order requiring California to reduce its prison population. However, the court immediately stayed the order to allow Governor Schwarzenegger to petition the US Supreme Court�meaning the order will not actually be enforced before the case is decided by the high court.

Soon after the order, a piece of emergency legislation signed by the governor went into effect. The plan was to reduce the inmate population by a mere 6,300 in 2010 through early release initiatives.

The scale of the plan was so small that it seemed designed to test the political waters before wading into a bigger early release program. If there were no significant backlash, the governor could simultaneously resolve the federal lawsuit and free up sorely needed funds, allowing him to release prisoners and blame it on the judges, whose lifetime appointments insulated them from political attack.

However, the order immediately provoked the hysterical �anti-crime� constituency�backed by prosecutors, law enforcement and corrections organizations�resistant to the slightest reduction in sentencing. The early release program was immediately opposed by the Sacramento and Orange County sheriff�s� unions, both filing lawsuits, and several judges throughout the state have refused to carry out the release mechanism. In May 2010, Schwarzenegger�s threat to move another 15,000 nonviolent felons to county jails from state prisons met with similar hostility.

Both big business parties have worked to cultivate �anti-crime� hysteria in the population for decades. As a consequence, both parties are terrified of being labeled �soft on crime� However, they are also increasingly aware that mass anger over the deep and protracted assault on living standards is growing beyond the safe channels of official politics.

It is within this political context that the Supreme Court enters the fray. Schwarzenegger�s appeal is in the form of a Writ of Certiorari�legal language for a request that the court review a case�and the Supreme Court can refuse to hear it. Yet at least four of the nine justices accepted the case for hearing not merely on the single issue raised in Schwarzenegger�s appeal�whether the panel of federal judges has the power to cut a state�s prison population�but �on the merits.� This requires a full hearing from both sides and a definitive final ruling based on all the facts.

Since 2006, the Supreme Court has been dominated by a right-wing bloc of five justices, including Anthony Kennedy, all deeply hostile to due process protections. It seems likely that the case was accepted for full hearing because of the right-wing bloc�s interest in the matter, and with good reason. Economic conditions have highlighted the national crisis of the �criminal justice� system.

The most important aspect of the crisis is the bipartisan, decades-long attack on the basic rights of citizens, allowing law enforcement officials and prosecutors unprecedented powers to legally bully, harass, arrest and incarcerate citizens with impunity. The same process has diminished due process rights to a shadow of their former strength, in many cases reducing the entire courtroom procedure to a farce. Even the jury trial�the greatest of all due process rights�has been converted into a dangerous gamble for defendants by virtue of draconian increases in sentencing for most felony offenses, violent or not.

The rotten fruits of this can be seen in the slow death of �Miranda rights� and Fourth Amendment privacy protections�originally intended to rein in overly aggressive police work�by a thousand cuts over a single generation, and the admission of police hearsay and prejudicial character evidence in a variety of contested hearings where it was once prohibited.

For more than a decade, many states have enacted statutes making �street terrorism� a crime, exposing minority youth to lengthy prison terms for mere association. All of this and more have facilitated the conviction of thousands of non-violent citizens. After conviction for even the most trivial of offenses, these citizens are subjected to lengthy prison terms via a panoply of harsh sentencing laws and enhancements.

This has begotten a national maze of expensive and overcrowded prisons. The conflict between this entire shameful edifice and the new economic realities is now coming to a head. However, in Schwarzenegger v. Plata the Court will, at most, deal only with the aspect of the crisis most troubling for the ruling class: the exorbitant costs of locking up all the new convicts for extended periods even as state and local governments wade into a protracted and unpopular process of cutting budgets for the most essential public services and social programs.

In a November 2009 New York Review of Books article, David Cole summed up the scale of the problem succinctly: �With approximately 2.3 million people in prison or jail, the United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world�by far�. Here, at least, we are an undisputed world leader; we have a 40 percent lead on our closest competitors�Russia and Belarus.�

However, what Cole terms �the political addiction to incarceration� might be better understood as the product of a �political addiction to prosecution,� given the wholesale liquidation of due process protections that fuels the growth of the prison population.

The dollar cost of maintaining one prisoner in the US ranges from $20,000 to $70,000 per year, far more than tuition at state universities and in many cases more than the annual income of entire families. National spending on prisons and jails has gone from $7 billion in 1980 to $60 billion today. In 2007, the San Francisco Chronicle projected California alone would spend $15.4 billion on incarcerating a section of its population by the 2012-2013 fiscal year.

This is simply unsustainable, and the costs become totally unjustifiable when one considers that the vast majority of these prisoners are incarcerated for non-violent offenses�mostly low-level property crimes, drug crimes or minor probation/parole violations. The corporate media�s long-term fixation with the most sensational acts of violence has completely distorted public discourse on the topic, obscuring this essential fact while promoting irrational fears.

How the Supreme Court will deal with Schwarzenegger v. Plata is uncertain. While the basic contradictions producing the prison crisis are lodged in the crisis of the capitalist system, the court�s mishandling of the issue could rapidly exacerbate the problem. The matter is scheduled for hearing November 30.

# ? Oct 11, 2010 23:11

pass me a natty bro: Jun 18, 2010; by angerbot

Lyesh posted:

Why is it that other countries seem to do fine with not putting "sociopathic monsters" away for life without parole? Every other first-world country does this, and NONE of them have huge crime waves because of it.

Other countries aren't like the United States. Someone gets killed in prison the UK and its shocking, someone gets killed in prison the US and its considered the norm. Also many other countries don't have the insanely structured prison gangs that controls gangs outside its walls. Thats why in a nutshell.

How many countries in the EU have something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_State_Penitentiary_riot

quote:

The New Mexico Penitentiary Riot, which took place on February 2 and February 3, 1980, in the state's maximum security prison south of Santa Fe, was one of the most violent prison riots in the history of the American correctional system: 33 inmates died and more than 200 inmates were treated for injuries.[1] None of the 12 officers taken hostage were killed, but seven were treated for injuries caused by beatings and rapes.

poopinmymouth posted:

Arguably because the US is unique in being able to create truely sociopathic monsters because of all it�s other problems. I completely agree we need to do away with lifetime sentences, but it needs to come with other things that prevent such situations. Social services, safety nets, narrowed income inequality, etc.

So, a guy covered in shamrock tattoos thats a gang leader for the arayan brotherhood, obviously had to kill someone to get into it. Obviously responsible for numerous deaths, in and out of prison. Has criminal connections to other white power gangs outside of prison, and is a career criminal. You're okay with letting these people go out in public? What do you think is the first thing they're going to do? Become a crossing guard for a elementary school and repent for his deeds? If you believe they're going to reform themselves into decent human beings then you're beyond naive on how the world actually operates.

# ? Oct 11, 2010 23:40

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

^^^

I think you are mixing up cause and effect. Also, that is some bad bolding.

# ? Oct 12, 2010 00:26

Sleepy Beef: Oct 2, 2009; by Fistgrrl

HidingFromGoro posted:

Sorry, the Prison Litigation Reform Act basically ensures he'll never be allowed to. Thanks Bill Clinton!

So not only are we going to violate the Constitutional rights of these prisoners, we're not going to allow them to (well, partially..) correct these violations through litigation? Holy loving poo poo our society is so broken.

# ? Oct 12, 2010 00:30

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Sleepy Beef posted:

So not only are we going to violate the Constitutional rights of these prisoners, we're not going to allow them to (well, partially..) correct these violations through litigation? Holy loving poo poo our society is so broken.

They also can't vote. So there is no way they will ever be able to exert any influence to change the law so that they can have their grievances heard in court.

Felons in the US have at least as much, if not more, legitimate reason to revolt against the government then the founding fathers did.

# ? Oct 12, 2010 00:44

FIRE CURES BIGOTS: Aug 26, 2002; by Y Kant Ozma Post

From The Republic

quote:

Glaucon - CEPHALUS - SOCRATES

Accordingly we went with Polemarchus to his house; and there we found his brothers Lysias and Euthydemus, and with them Thrasymachus the Chalcedonian, Charmantides the Paeanian, and Cleitophon the son of Aristonymus. There too was Cephalus the father of Polemarchus, whom I had not seen for a long time, and I thought him very much aged. He was seated on a cushioned chair, and had a garland on his head, for he had been sacrificing in the court; and there were some other chairs in the room arranged in a semicircle, upon which we sat down by him. He saluted me eagerly, and then he said: --

You don't come to see me, Socrates, as often as you ought: If I were still able to go and see you I would not ask you to come to me. But at my age I can hardly get to the city, and therefore you should come oftener to the Piraeus. For let me tell you, that the more the pleasures of the body fade away, the greater to me is the pleasure and charm of conversation. Do not then deny my request, but make our house your resort and keep company with these young men; we are old friends, and you will be quite at home with us.

I replied: There is nothing which for my part I like better, Cephalus, than conversing with aged men; for I regard them as travellers who have gone a journey which I too may have to go, and of whom I ought to enquire, whether the way is smooth and easy, or rugged and difficult. And this is a question which I should like to ask of you who have arrived at that time which the poets call the 'threshold of old age' --Is life harder towards the end, or what report do you give of it?

I will tell you, Socrates, he said, what my own feeling is. Men of my age flock together; we are birds of a feather, as the old proverb says; and at our meetings the tale of my acquaintance commonly is --I cannot eat, I cannot drink; the pleasures of youth and love are fled away: there was a good time once, but now that is gone, and life is no longer life. Some complain of the slights which are put upon them by relations, and they will tell you sadly of how many evils their old age is the cause. But to me, Socrates, these complainers seem to blame that which is not really in fault. For if old age were the cause, I too being old, and every other old man, would have felt as they do. But this is not my own experience, nor that of others whom I have known. How well I remember the aged poet Sophocles, when in answer to the question, How does love suit with age, Sophocles, --are you still the man you were? Peace, he replied; most gladly have I escaped the thing of which you speak; I feel as if I had escaped from a mad and furious master. His words have often occurred to my mind since, and they seem as good to me now as at the time when he uttered them. For certainly old age has a great sense of calm and freedom; when the passions relax their hold, then, as Sophocles says, we are freed from the grasp not of one mad master only, but of many. The truth is, Socrates, that these regrets, and also the complaints about relations, are to be attributed to the same cause, which is not old age, but men's characters and tempers; for he who is of a calm and happy nature will hardly feel the pressure of age, but to him who is of an opposite disposition youth and age are equally a burden.

I listened in admiration, and wanting to draw him out, that he might go on --Yes, Cephalus, I said: but I rather suspect that people in general are not convinced by you when you speak thus; they think that old age sits lightly upon you, not because of your happy disposition, but because you are rich, and wealth is well known to be a great comforter.

You are right, he replied; they are not convinced: and there is something in what they say; not, however, so much as they imagine. I might answer them as Themistocles answered the Seriphian who was abusing him and saying that he was famous, not for his own merits but because he was an Athenian: 'If you had been a native of my country or I of yours, neither of us would have been famous.' And to those who are not rich and are impatient of old age, the same reply may be made; for to the good poor man old age cannot be a light burden, nor can a bad rich man ever have peace with himself.

May I ask, Cephalus, whether your fortune was for the most part inherited or acquired by you?

Acquired! Socrates; do you want to know how much I acquired? In the art of making money I have been midway between my father and grandfather: for my grandfather, whose name I bear, doubled and trebled the value of his patrimony, that which he inherited being much what I possess now; but my father Lysanias reduced the property below what it is at present: and I shall be satisfied if I leave to these my sons not less but a little more than I received.

That was why I asked you the question, I replied, because I see that you are indifferent about money, which is a characteristic rather of those who have inherited their fortunes than of those who have acquired them; the makers of fortunes have a second love of money as a creation of their own, resembling the affection of authors for their own poems, or of parents for their children, besides that natural love of it for the sake of use and profit which is common to them and all men. And hence they are very bad company, for they can talk about nothing but the praises of wealth. That is true, he said.

Yes, that is very true, but may I ask another question? What do you consider to be the greatest blessing which you have reaped from your wealth?

One, he said, of which I could not expect easily to convince others. For let me tell you, Socrates, that when a man thinks himself to be near death, fears and cares enter into his mind which he never had before; the tales of a world below and the punishment which is exacted there of deeds done here were once a laughing matter to him, but now he is tormented with the thought that they may be true: either from the weakness of age, or because he is now drawing nearer to that other place, he has a clearer view of these things; suspicions and alarms crowd thickly upon him, and he begins to reflect and consider what wrongs he has done to others. And when he finds that the sum of his transgressions is great he will many a time like a child start up in his sleep for fear, and he is filled with dark forebodings. But to him who is conscious of no sin, sweet hope, as Pindar charmingly says, is the kind nurse of his age:

Hope, he says, cherishes the soul of him who lives in justice and holiness and is the nurse of his age and the companion of his journey; --hope which is mightiest to sway the restless soul of man.

How admirable are his words! And the great blessing of riches, I do not say to every man, but to a good man, is, that he has had no occasion to deceive or to defraud others, either intentionally or unintentionally; and when he departs to the world below he is not in any apprehension about offerings due to the gods or debts which he owes to men. Now to this peace of mind the possession of wealth greatly contributes; and therefore I say, that, setting one thing against another, of the many advantages which wealth has to give, to a man of sense this is in my opinion the greatest.

Well said, Cephalus, I replied; but as concerning justice, what is it? --to speak the truth and to pay your debts --no more than this? And even to this are there not exceptions? Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition.

You are quite right, he replied.
But then, I said, speaking the truth and paying your debts is not a correct definition of justice.

Cephalus - SOCRATES - POLEMARCHUS

Quite correct, Socrates, if Simonides is to be believed, said Polemarchus interposing.

I fear, said Cephalus, that I must go now, for I have to look after the sacrifices, and I hand over the argument to Polemarchus and the company.

Is not Polemarchus your heir? I said.
To be sure, he answered, and went away laughing to the sacrifices.

Socrates - POLEMARCHUS

Tell me then, O thou heir of the argument, what did Simonides say, and according to you truly say, about justice?

He said that the repayment of a debt is just, and in saying so he appears to me to be right.

I should be sorry to doubt the word of such a wise and inspired man, but his meaning, though probably clear to you, is the reverse of clear to me. For he certainly does not mean, as we were now saying that I ought to return a return a deposit of arms or of anything else to one who asks for it when he is not in his right senses; and yet a deposit cannot be denied to be a debt.

True.
Then when the person who asks me is not in his right mind I am by no means to make the return?

Certainly not.
When Simonides said that the repayment of a debt was justice, he did not mean to include that case?

Certainly not; for he thinks that a friend ought always to do good to a friend and never evil.

You mean that the return of a deposit of gold which is to the injury of the receiver, if the two parties are friends, is not the repayment of a debt, --that is what you would imagine him to say?

Yes.
And are enemies also to receive what we owe to them?
To be sure, he said, they are to receive what we owe them, and an enemy, as I take it, owes to an enemy that which is due or proper to him --that is to say, evil.

Simonides, then, after the manner of poets, would seem to have spoken darkly of the nature of justice; for he really meant to say that justice is the giving to each man what is proper to him, and this he termed a debt.

That must have been his meaning, he said.
By heaven! I replied; and if we asked him what due or proper thing is given by medicine, and to whom, what answer do you think that he would make to us?

He would surely reply that medicine gives drugs and meat and drink to human bodies.

And what due or proper thing is given by cookery, and to what?
Seasoning to food.
And what is that which justice gives, and to whom?
If, Socrates, we are to be guided at all by the analogy of the preceding instances, then justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies.

That is his meaning then?
I think so.
And who is best able to do good to his friends and evil to his enemies in time of sickness?

The physician.
Or when they are on a voyage, amid the perils of the sea?
The pilot.
And in what sort of actions or with a view to what result is the just man most able to do harm to his enemy and good to his friends?

In going to war against the one and in making alliances with the other.

But when a man is well, my dear Polemarchus, there is no need of a physician?

No.
And he who is not on a voyage has no need of a pilot?
No.
Then in time of peace justice will be of no use?
I am very far from thinking so.
You think that justice may be of use in peace as well as in war?
Yes.
Like husbandry for the acquisition of corn?
Yes.
Or like shoemaking for the acquisition of shoes, --that is what you mean?

Yes.
And what similar use or power of acquisition has justice in time of peace?

In contracts, Socrates, justice is of use.
And by contracts you mean partnerships?
Exactly.
But is the just man or the skilful player a more useful and better partner at a game of draughts?

The skilful player.
And in the laying of bricks and stones is the just man a more useful or better partner than the builder?

Quite the reverse.
Then in what sort of partnership is the just man a better partner than the harp-player, as in playing the harp the harp-player is certainly a better partner than the just man?

In a money partnership.
Yes, Polemarchus, but surely not in the use of money; for you do not want a just man to be your counsellor the purchase or sale of a horse; a man who is knowing about horses would be better for that, would he not?

Certainly.
And when you want to buy a ship, the shipwright or the pilot would be better?

True.
Then what is that joint use of silver or gold in which the just man is to be preferred?

When you want a deposit to be kept safely.
You mean when money is not wanted, but allowed to lie?
Precisely.
That is to say, justice is useful when money is useless?
That is the inference.
And when you want to keep a pruning-hook safe, then justice is useful to the individual and to the state; but when you want to use it, then the art of the vine-dresser?

Clearly.
And when you want to keep a shield or a lyre, and not to use them, you would say that justice is useful; but when you want to use them, then the art of the soldier or of the musician?

Certainly.
And so of all the other things; --justice is useful when they are useless, and useless when they are useful?

That is the inference.
Then justice is not good for much. But let us consider this further point: Is not he who can best strike a blow in a boxing match or in any kind of fighting best able to ward off a blow?

Certainly.
And he who is most skilful in preventing or escaping from a disease is best able to create one?

True.
And he is the best guard of a camp who is best able to steal a march upon the enemy?

Certainly.
Then he who is a good keeper of anything is also a good thief?
That, I suppose, is to be inferred.
Then if the just man is good at keeping money, he is good at stealing it.

That is implied in the argument.
Then after all the just man has turned out to be a thief. And this is a lesson which I suspect you must have learnt out of Homer; for he, speaking of Autolycus, the maternal grandfather of Odysseus, who is a favourite of his, affirms that

He was excellent above all men in theft and perjury. And so, you and Homer and Simonides are agreed that justice is an art of theft; to be practised however 'for the good of friends and for the harm of enemies,' --that was what you were saying?

No, certainly not that, though I do not now know what I did say; but I still stand by the latter words.

Well, there is another question: By friends and enemies do we mean those who are so really, or only in seeming?

Surely, he said, a man may be expected to love those whom he thinks good, and to hate those whom he thinks evil.

Yes, but do not persons often err about good and evil: many who are not good seem to be so, and conversely?

That is true.
Then to them the good will be enemies and the evil will be their friends? True.

And in that case they will be right in doing good to the evil and evil to the good?

Clearly.
But the good are just and would not do an injustice?
True.
Then according to your argument it is just to injure those who do no wrong?

Nay, Socrates; the doctrine is immoral.
Then I suppose that we ought to do good to the just and harm to the unjust?

I like that better.
But see the consequence: --Many a man who is ignorant of human nature has friends who are bad friends, and in that case he ought to do harm to them; and he has good enemies whom he ought to benefit; but, if so, we shall be saying the very opposite of that which we affirmed to be the meaning of Simonides.

Very true, he said: and I think that we had better correct an error into which we seem to have fallen in the use of the words 'friend' and 'enemy.'

What was the error, Polemarchus? I asked.
We assumed that he is a friend who seems to be or who is thought good.

And how is the error to be corrected?
We should rather say that he is a friend who is, as well as seems, good; and that he who seems only, and is not good, only seems to be and is not a friend; and of an enemy the same may be said.

You would argue that the good are our friends and the bad our enemies?

Yes.
And instead of saying simply as we did at first, that it is just to do good to our friends and harm to our enemies, we should further say: It is just to do good to our friends when they are good and harm to our enemies when they are evil?

Yes, that appears to me to be the truth.
But ought the just to injure any one at all?
Undoubtedly he ought to injure those who are both wicked and his enemies.

When horses are injured, are they improved or deteriorated?
The latter.
Deteriorated, that is to say, in the good qualities of horses, not of dogs?

Yes, of horses.
And dogs are deteriorated in the good qualities of dogs, and not of horses?

Of course.
And will not men who are injured be deteriorated in that which is the proper virtue of man?

Certainly.
And that human virtue is justice?
To be sure.
Then men who are injured are of necessity made unjust?
That is the result.
But can the musician by his art make men unmusical?
Certainly not.
Or the horseman by his art make them bad horsemen?
Impossible.
And can the just by justice make men unjust, or speaking general can the good by virtue make them bad?

Assuredly not.
Any more than heat can produce cold?
It cannot.
Or drought moisture?
Clearly not.
Nor can the good harm any one?
Impossible.
And the just is the good?
Certainly.
Then to injure a friend or any one else is not the act of a just man, but of the opposite, who is the unjust?

I think that what you say is quite true, Socrates.
Then if a man says that justice consists in the repayment of debts, and that good is the debt which a man owes to his friends, and evil the debt which he owes to his enemies, --to say this is not wise; for it is not true, if, as has been clearly shown, the injuring of another can be in no case just.

# ? Oct 12, 2010 01:04

pass me a natty bro: Jun 18, 2010; by angerbot

Sleepy Beef posted:

So not only are we going to violate the Constitutional rights of these prisoners, we're not going to allow them to (well, partially..) correct these violations through litigation? Holy loving poo poo our society is so broken.

We lost Johnny Cash, the biggest /most vocal prisoner rights advocate there was and will be for some time. We'll grant dead people the right to vote before prisoners.

# ? Oct 12, 2010 02:39

Kekekela: Oct 28, 2004

pass me a natty bro posted:

None of the 12 officers taken hostage were killed

That's some pretty misleading emphasis.

# ? Oct 12, 2010 05:19

HidingFromGoro: Jun 5, 2006

LF repost, short article, title says it all

HenryKrinkle posted:

Woman Says Arpaio Locked Her Up With Men

# ? Oct 17, 2010 11:15

HidingFromGoro: Jun 5, 2006

Texas court blocks ruling in Willingham death-penalty inquiry. They're trying to clear his name through a court-of-inquiry...

quote:
"Every shred of evidence points conclusively to his innocence," said former Gov. Mark White, one of the attorneys representing the family. White and other attorneys also criticized Gov. Rick Perry's decision to allow the execution to go forward in spite of a last-minute report from one of the fire experts, Dr. Gerald Hurst, who testified Thursday that he was never contacted by the governor's office or other officials in response to his findings.

...while the TX Forensic Science Commission is investigating the possibility of government misconduct surrounding his conviction and subsequent execution.

Unfortunately, the Commission is chaired by the District Attorney who's already made public statements about Willingham which calls into question his impartiality:

quote:
Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley said lawyers trying to clear Cameron Todd Willingham's name are using the case to further their effort to abolish the death penalty. He also argued that he has a First Amendment right to state his opinion.

Other commission members said Bradley's remarks to The Associated Press, in which he described Willingham as a "guilty monster," raise questions about the impartiality and integrity of their inquiry.
Women convicted of killing their abusive husbands are freed from prison under new Missouri law.

quote:
Two women who spent more than 30 years in Missouri prisons for killing their abusive husbands were released Friday after their lawyer argued that a recent law made them eligible for parole.

Carlene Borden, 65, and 55-year-old Vicky Williams won their freedom in part because of a 2007 law that provides for battered women who kill their spouses.
PA: Bill would ease overcrowding in prisons.

quote:
"It is senseless and wasteful to incarcerate otherwise law-abiding parolees for such minor infractions," said Mr. Greenleaf. "This will provide a fiscally sound and practical alternative."

# ? Oct 17, 2010 11:16

Slaan: Mar 16, 2009; ASHERAH DEMANDS I FEAST, I VOTE FOR A FEAST OF FLESH

HidingFromGoro posted:

[*]PA: Bill would ease overcrowding in prisons.

Do you think this might be a start to the end of the War on Crime? If policy makers are starting to see how expensive running these prisons are, compared to how minor most "crimes" are, combined with the current tea party/libertarian climate, perhaps fiscal concerns might take precedence over vengeance for at least a short time?

# ? Oct 17, 2010 12:32

igby: Sep 7, 2010; by T. Fine

HidingFromGoro posted:

Texas court blocks ruling in Willingham death-penalty inquiry. They're trying to clear his name through a court-of-inquiry...

...while the TX Forensic Science Commission is investigating the possibility of government misconduct surrounding his conviction and subsequent execution.

Unfortunately, the Commission is chaired by the District Attorney who's already made public statements about Willingham which calls into question his impartiality:

The Willingham case is so hosed up. I read the New Yorker story about him a few months ago and it broke my loving heart.

Australia is no where near the US in terms of systemic abuse and institutional violence, but we have 12 private prisons now and the number is set to rise in NSW with Cessnock and another prison being bartered. Indigenous Australians and the mentally ill are hideously over-represented in the prison system. Since the '90s, when deinstitutionalisation of the mentally ill began, Australian prisons have turned into warehouses for people with untreated psychiatric issues. The average figure is that 80% of the prison population is sick, and most of the people we lock up shouldn't be in prison, they should be in therapy or hospital. Not to mention the fact that the prison population is further disenfranchised by high levels of poor literacy.

I'm currently studying to be an English teacher, and one of my long-term goals is to do a Ph.D involving analysing and creating programs designed to promote literacy in the Australian prison population. The Australian system isn't even broken and it's still lovely. I don't know what to say to you guys in America. Keep doing what you're doing, I guess. I have so much respect for people doing advocacy work, especially in situations as broken as this one. You're proof that all is not lost.

igby fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Oct 18, 2010

# ? Oct 18, 2010 20:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 11:30

BattleMaster: Aug 14, 2000

Is Toronto home to worst-fed inmates in North America?

quote:

In Toronto, by comparison, lunch served to inmates at courthouses � most of whom are awaiting trial and presumed innocent � consists of a sandwich, often cheese, and glass of water mixed with artificial flavour crystals.

Vegetarians get a piece of lettuce and a slice of tomato on a hamburger bun.

The Toronto Police Service, which is responsible for the lunches, pays $1.19 per meal.

I'm not condoning starving convicted prisoners (hell no, they're fed poorly too and it pisses me off) but you'd think that even conservatives would think that it is a bad thing to starve people who are under the presumption of innocence.

# ? Oct 18, 2010 22:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Prison Thread

«‹›83 »