|
HidingFromGoro posted:UK: Kenneth Clarke ready to bring in troops if strikes erupt over privatized prison. Someone in our place said there is currently a holiday ban on certain people incase we need to go in and cover for strikers. (I work in another establishment not the Army) I think it might be a rumour though. HMP Birmingham will be a nightmare, I'm looking forward to watching how it turns out.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
nevermind
HELLO THERE fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Apr 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
duck monster posted:But heres where it got loving messed up. The police said that they had no spots for him for 3 months, but they'd start doing the compliance drug tests immediately. Meaning he had to get clean *before* going to rehab with no medical assistance and stay clean for 3 months and THEN do rehab. What in the immediate gently caress. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 12:57
|
|
|
The Reaganomicon posted:What in the immediate gently caress. Some people read Kafka's works as instruction manuals. Also Orwell's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUlGiGZm0i8 https://vimeo.com/20896209 KingEup fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Apr 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Jealous should have sent HFG or something. Dude's usually a solid public speaker but seemed to be flustered with all the statistics. Also, the Tea Party/small government folks getting behind prison reform might be the kick in the rear end the cause needs. If we could form some sort of unholy Voltron between the reformers for human rights and the tax cutters, this thing could actually go somewhere. Also, the second link looks interesting. I'll give it a watch. edit: ten minutes in on the Vimeo link. It's fantastic so far. Fascinating. Thank you. Eat This Glob fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Apr 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
So there is this thing right here that scares the living poo poo out of me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System Now, it says in the article there they some prisons are going to start installing these in rooms to quell riots. Now, how exactly does this not fall under the concept of "Cruel and unusual punishment?" Yes I know, I know, this thread has made a perfect showcase on all of the cruel and unusual poo poo that goes on in prison. But the ADS can't just be hushed up or just disregarded as an "accident" or something. This thing is a good drat torture ray straight out of sci-fi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
I’m Norwegian, so using this thread to ask something I’ve been wondering about – how does it work for people when they get out of prison, be it on probation or on a full release? I’m especially thinking of getting back in a job. Do all jobs require them to check some box on a paper saying that they have done time? And how far will that block them from getting a job? Over here only a few jobs require you to answer questions about criminal record and obtain a transcript of your record from the police (army, schools, kindergarten, justice system and the likes). For anything else I’ve never even been asked. And just to add some content in regard of the lower tier of crimes. We are also gradually moving towards sentencing white collar crimes and what would otherwise be short prison sentences to serving their time at home. They are fitted with an ankle bracelet with a GPS deceive on it. They are allowed out of the house on strict timetables for work and a few hours a week for shopping. The opinion is that its rather effective as it doesn’t remove them from society, they can work and pay tax, but people still seem to feel it as a genuine punishment. Of course it can only be used for some crimes, but it has been a test project seen as sufficiently successful to now be expanded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 09:53
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So there is this thing right here that scares the living poo poo out of me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System This is the best part of that wikipedia page: quote:developing cancer from exposure is "very unlikely"
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 12:17
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So there is this thing right here that scares the living poo poo out of me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System Yes but you see justice victim's rights GANGS hard-working cops just world BLACKS tough on crime
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 13:11
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So there is this thing right here that scares the living poo poo out of me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System Prisons could put one in every cell and keep them on 24/7 -- people would just say "well, they shouldn't have broken the law!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:This is the best part of that wikipedia page: ? I mean, it's loving horrible that this thing is used, but developing cancer from it IS very unlikely. It's not the kind of radiation that causes cancer. It's really low energy compared to even visible light, it just happens to be the right wavelength to cause thermal effects by resonating water and fat molecules. What I find far more disturbing is the automatic systems used to limit exposure (since extended exposure can cause burns) can be removed by manual override. Some sadistic gently caress is gonna do this, or even a regular guard who's overworked, underpaid, undertrained and in the middle of a situation that might kick off into a full blown riot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
^^^ I thought the quotemarks were funny and the whole statement pretty vague. A lot of things are very unlikely to lead to cancer developing, and for those things, cancer isn't usually mentioned, let alone with oddly placed quotes. And about that manual override, given this whole thread, I'm fully expecting guards to routinely use this as a disciplinary action or even just for shits and giggles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 16:34
|
|
|
I believe that the proliferation of taser abuse gives us all the information we need to know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
JustNorse posted:I’m Norwegian, so using this thread to ask something I’ve been wondering about – how does it work for people when they get out of prison, be it on probation or on a full release? I’m especially thinking of getting back in a job. Do all jobs require them to check some box on a paper saying that they have done time? And how far will that block them from getting a job? I can only speak for Australia, but for jobs or anything else, like passports, that requires a police check, they only look back 10 years. However, some sensitive jobs ask "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" without a timeframe. Of course, how they would ever check after the requisite ten years is a mystery to me. Again, if that sort of thing is even legal in Norway, I can't say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 16:58
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:UK: Kenneth Clarke ready to bring in troops if strikes erupt over privatized prison. Jesus loving hell  G4S are honest-to-badness thugs and murderers, he'd have to make threats like that to make anyone not want to protest the decision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 21:25
|
|
|
JustNorse posted:I’m Norwegian, so using this thread to ask something I’ve been wondering about – how does it work for people when they get out of prison, be it on probation or on a full release? I’m especially thinking of getting back in a job. Do all jobs require them to check some box on a paper saying that they have done time? And how far will that block them from getting a job? Here, almost all jobs ask you whether you've been convicted of a crime; having a felony charge on your record is widely considered in America to mean you'll be flipping burgers for the rest of your life even after you serve your sentence. I think it's illegal for certain employers to have a hard "no felons" policy, and some employers will make an effort to understand the circumstances of an otherwise well-qualified candidate, but a lot of them are just going to shred any resume that checks that little "Yes" box. And for the rest, well, why hire a candidate with a record when there's a comparable candidate without any crimes to his name? Unless you're rich and white, being convicted of a crime means being pretty much permanently barred from anything above food service and manual labor. That doesn't just go for jobs, either - the apartment complex I live in asks about your criminal record on the paperwork, and directs people to not even bother applying if they've got a criminal record. Having certain crimes on your record automatically disqualifies you for many government benefits and social programs; for example, being convicted of a drug-related offense renders you permanently ineligible for federal student loans or grants. In many states, felons often lose the right to even vote, sometimes permanently!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Here, almost all jobs ask you whether you've been convicted of a crime; having a felony charge on your record is widely considered in America to mean you'll be flipping burgers for the rest of your life even after you serve your sentence. I think it's illegal for certain employers to have a hard "no felons" policy, and some employers will make an effort to understand the circumstances of an otherwise well-qualified candidate, but a lot of them are just going to shred any resume that checks that little "Yes" box. And for the rest, well, why hire a candidate with a record when there's a comparable candidate without any crimes to his name? Unless you're rich and white, being convicted of a crime means being pretty much permanently barred from anything above food service and manual labor. Additionally, a lot of professional associations will require that you not have a felony to associate with them, which in some fields means being unable to work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:words In addition to all that, there is the Denial of Federal Benefits Program- specifically intended for low level drug offenders and "casual drug users"- which takes away access to most every type of government program or assistance you can think of. quote:Alerting Casual Drug Users
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
I just spent too many hours reading this whole thread. I entered it as someone who knew ultimately that rehabilitation was the best answer, but did not know how to approach the reprehensible people whom your moral impulse is to say "gently caress them." Reading this has totally changed my mind and solidified the idea that rehabilitation is not just the best, but the only way to approach criminal justice. The myriad of abuse and slave labor American prisoners endure is loving disgusting. While the acts themselves are disgusting, what is even worse is that our country's prison system really illustrates how deep our heads are in the assholes of blind and unbridled capitalist institutions. That comes off as really heavy handed, and I used to be one of those people who really really wanted to believe in liberty in the classical sense, but gently caress, how can you in the face of things like this? Like if we as a country cant deal with such a harmful and cyclical human rights violation, how the gently caress are we going to get anything done, ever?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:In addition to all that, there is the Denial of Federal Benefits Program- specifically intended for low level drug offenders and "casual drug users"- which takes away access to most every type of government program or assistance you can think of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
KittenofDoom posted:They can lose their FCC license? Would this include Rush Limbaugh's abuse of prescription pain killers? It's a case-by-case basis type of deal at the judge's discretion, so like most things with the system if you have enough money / good lawyers you can get out of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
I don't understand the mindset about not hiring a felon. Speaking as the owner of a small business, assuming the felony is sufficiently long ago, or doesn't concern my field of business in any way, I'd much rather hire a qualified/intelligent felon than a moron with a clean record. EDIT: And I feel bad saying this, but the fact that other people won't hire them would work in my favor as an employer -- obviously, it's not ethical to underpay them as a result, but the less I have to worry about people jumping ship the better. PT6A fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Apr 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I don't understand the mindset about not hiring a felon. Speaking as the owner of a small business, assuming the felony is sufficiently long ago, or doesn't concern my field of business in any way, I'd much rather hire a qualified/intelligent felon than a moron with a clean record.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
nm posted:You're far more progressive than most business owners. At the same time, it's not a business where things can be easily stolen. I wouldn't hire someone with, for example, a fraud conviction (since my business does rely on some degree of trust with confidential information), but a drug charge? No fuckin' problems. EDIT: Especially related to drugs, the only difference between a felon and "a productive member of the community" is the bad luck of getting caught. I knew people who dealt massive amounts of drugs and whatnot that I would, without a second thought, trust with my life or my business. PT6A fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Apr 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
Its really badly worded, and badly enforced, it is only supposed to be if they have a felony that relates to the job field in question... but yeah. Best bet for a felon is to actually go into business for themselves. The guys who will give you funding for a start up will care a gently caress lot less about your record, and if you manage to pull it off nobody is going to ask you, the owner about a criminal record. Also you might want to remove that picture on juvenile executions since the supreme court found them unconstitutional back in 2005
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 05:47
|
|
|
Cheers for the replays. For me this is where the logic really breaks down. One thing is to be for harsh sentences, harsh prisons and all that (which I am not), but it seems to me you at least have to give people an opportunity to get back to society. I do see the perceived we have a gun to your head threat in the form of pulling a student loan or a research grant if one receives a drug conviction. However, is a very fear-based approach. Student loans and grants seems like just the kind of thing you’d not want people to be ineligible for. Not a lot of motivation left for being on the straight and narrow after a conviction if you are basically left at the bad end of the housing market and the best you can hope for in the job section is burger flipping.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 07:02
|
|
|
Well, most people take a less sophisticated view than that - usually it's something in the vicinity of "why should MY TAXES go to support BAD PEOPLE who did BAD THINGS, I don't have ANY sympathy for them". In addition, a lot of people don't really buy into the whole "rehabilitation" thing because they believe in a world with two types of people: "good people" who pride themselves on hard work and never commit crimes, and "bad people" whose only ambition is to leech off of society and just can't resist doing bad things. The "bad people" are unredeemable scum who deserve whatever is coming to them and by no means should be given the slightest bit of assistance, while the "good people" are gainfully-employed go-getters who don't need those kinds of programs in the first place. It's a painfully common black-and-white view of the world, and the root of a great many problems in America. Of course, because that view is often rooted in racism, it might be more accurate to call it a "white-and-black" perception of the world rather than "black-and-white". But since the public don't care what happens to the "bad people", and they often assume that a "bad person" should go to prison even if there's no evidence of him or her committing a crime, someone who has a criminal record or likes rap music has a far greater chance of being unjustly sent to prison than a well-behaved rich white kid. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Apr 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 08:27
|
|
|
Not disagreeing with anything you said Main Painframe (I couldn’t anyway not being in the US), but slightly overstating it; people who are of the persuasion that they are good people and never commit crimes have never filled out a tax return. Mine is as straight forward as they come, but the requirement of guilt here is only negligence and you don’t get away with being negligent about the content of a rule, only about fact. So I bet that if it was minutely examined I’d have messed up on something. Granted, they’d never prosecute over anything as insignificant as what they’d find, but I still more likely than not commit a crime once a year. And then there is every time I put the keys in the ignition… [/end derail of prison thread]
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 09:15
|
|
|
I had a personal run in with the law in a form of a 1st offense DUI. I had to attend 12 hours of highway safety classes at a state correctional facility. I am fairly pro intelligent-drug-law. The officers their outright admitted that the entire criminal just system is fueled by drug and alcohol offenses. Stating that at the particular facility nearly 90% of the people behind bars for for non-violent drug/alcohol related incidents, and also that this entire multi-million facility was built just to house more offenders of this type. But hey it works though because all these otherwise good people aren't flooding the already saturated job market with honest hard labor. The american prison system is a total joke. Not joke like "haha" but joke like "most americans are simply cattle that we can toss in jail and reap billions from". Boy am I glad that our streets aren't ran by pot heads and other recreational drug users who in my experience are more honest, sane and mentally balanced than any retard on wall street.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 13:43
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I believe that the proliferation of taser abuse gives us all the information we need to know. Here's a question for you, what percentage of officers that carry tasers are known to have abused them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Eugene Debs posted:The Justice Department had stenographers record the speech, and two weeks afterward, a federal court in Cleveland indicted Debs for violating the Espionage Act. Ghosts of Socialism Past 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
Quarantini posted:I had a personal run in with the law in a form of a 1st offense DUI. I had to attend 12 hours of highway safety classes at a state correctional facility. I am fairly pro intelligent-drug-law. The officers their outright admitted that the entire criminal just system is fueled by drug and alcohol offenses. Stating that at the particular facility nearly 90% of the people behind bars for for non-violent drug/alcohol related incidents, and also that this entire multi-million facility was built just to house more offenders of this type. There is a huge difference between (most) alcohol related offenses and (some) drug related offenses. Your statement "90% of people behind bars [are there] for alcohol/drug related incidents" is inaccurate because it's apples and oranges. Let me give you some examples: Dude gets caught with an ounce of weed. That's a drug offense. Dude gets high on meth and drives his car into a school bus. That's also a drug offense. Dude gets drunk and beats the poo poo out of his wife. That's an alcohol offense. He doesn't go to jail because he is drunk, he is in jail because alcohol makes him more likely to beat the poo poo out of his wife. In other words, it's not possession of alcohol that's punished (yes there are some exceptions). It's the myriad of illegal things people do while drunk. It's totally accurate to say that the vast, vast majority of people are (rightfully) in jail for "alcohol related offenses," but it's inaccurate to say that "alcohol related offenses" are in the same category as "drug related offenses." This is an important distinction, particularly for those states that want to impose dime-a-bottle tax on alcohol to pay for the public defender system. The rest of your post is well made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro (or any one else for that matter), Can you link any studies or articles examining the link between the media's portrayal of the criminal justice system/criminals and sentencing? It seems that alot of the disgusting attitudes the public has towards crime in general is a direct effect of heavily narrative and sensationalist entertainment regarding the matter, be it on the news or "Law and Order" like shows. A book I read for a sociology class, "Ad Nauseum" by Jason Torchinsky and Carrie McLaren touched on it briefly, and while I don't think media can be blamed as the cause of America's problems with criminal justice, I think it certainly serves to reificate alot of the dominant ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 02:47
|
|
|
I was jailed for 90 days until last october on a drug charge, and I couldn't believe how much better the county jail (Pima County AZ) was compared to horror stories I've heard before and since about the state DOC and prisons in general. I guess it must be a combination of privatization, longer sentences (almost no one is in jail for more than a year afaik) and "politics" (racism) being encouraged in prisons and stifled in County. I'm glad that less severe offenders receive better custody, but it's really a sad situation over all. Interestingly, at age 27 I was older than 75% of the inmates in my wing. edit: I anecdotally confirm that >80% of inmates are there for drug offenses. HidingFromGoro posted:In addition to all that, there is the Denial of Federal Benefits Program- specifically intended for low level drug offenders and "casual drug users"- which takes away access to most every type of government program or assistance you can think of. Dean Golberry fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Apr 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Water Hammer posted:Here's a question for you, what percentage of officers that carry tasers are known to have abused them? Oh right I forgot that as ever it's a few bad apples.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
BigHead posted:There is a huge difference between (most) alcohol related offenses and (some) drug related offenses. Your statement "90% of people behind bars [are there] for alcohol/drug related incidents" is inaccurate because it's apples and oranges. Let me give you some examples: While not true in all cases, a crime committed because of addiction (whether shoplifting booze or getting in drunken fights) while "real" crimes, we could reduce recidivism by properly dealing with addiction. Unfortunately that looks more expensive (I'd argue long term though it is cheaper) and coddling criminals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
Dean Golberry posted:county jail (Pima County AZ) Dean Golberry posted:Is this poo poo specifically engineered to guarantee that they go back to, or start, selling drugs? causticBeet posted:Can you link any studies or articles examining the link between the media's portrayal of the criminal justice system/criminals and sentencing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 04:08
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That doesn't just go for jobs, either - the apartment complex I live in asks about your criminal record on the paperwork, and directs people to not even bother applying if they've got a criminal record. Having certain crimes on your record automatically disqualifies you for many government benefits and social programs; for example, being convicted of a drug-related offense renders you permanently ineligible for federal student loans or grants. In many states, felons often lose the right to even vote, sometimes permanently! In short, it's another way in which America can be compared to pre-Revolutionary France; convicts, upon being freed, may as well be given a yellow ticket of leave. It is virtually impossible for convicts to be employed once again once convicted; for many, they must break the law to survive and are thus put back into prison-slavery. It is not at all healthy for society, but a few benefit and a few others get to feel "righteous" about it, so the system continues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:In short, it's another way in which America can be compared to pre-Revolutionary France; convicts, upon being freed, may as well be given a yellow ticket of leave. It is virtually impossible for convicts to be employed once again once convicted; for many, they must break the law to survive and are thus put back into prison-slavery. I really don't understand how people even start to justify this. Being permanently listed in records that are publicly obtainable as a Bad Person (or at best, Formerly Bad Person) might be justified for things like murder, but does anyone seriously think that the dude who stole $951 worth of stuff is so terrible that every potential employer of his must be told about his crimes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 13:50
|
|