|
Trogdos! posted:To give a 'little' contrast, let me say that today I saw in the news that a dangerous prisoner for life has escaped in Finland. While on a permitted walk in the centre of the 16th largest city in Finland. Your right, it's much better to brutalize them for years then parole them legitimately when you need room for another pot head.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
Before it becomes an argument! Trogdos you aren't suggesting that the American system is better, are you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 18:02
|
|
|
Gourd of Taste posted:Before it becomes an argument! Trogdos you aren't suggesting that the American system is better, are you? Nope, not at all. The american way is just inhuman. The thing is though that having a life sentenced dude on permitted walks sounds rather questionable since he's supposed to be detained. Even the article said that police called him "dangerous to others and himself". The Finnish public sees prisons as basically hotels, but having read quite a bit of this thread I'll take it over 'your way' anyday. edit: now that I think about it, I recall there being a case where some businessman serving his sentence was allowed to go to work from prison because the court saw that a prison sentence would affect his job/profits. Don't blame me for being kind of irked when someone who is supposed to be 'punished' for his crimes basically continues his life as normal. Also don't jump on me for using the word punish. Trogdos! fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jul 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
Trogdos! posted:edit: now that I think about it, I recall there being a case where some businessman serving his sentence was allowed to go to work from prison because the court saw that a prison sentence would affect his job/profits. Don't blame me for being kind of irked when someone who is supposed to be 'punished' for his crimes basically continues his life as normal. Also don't jump on me for using the word punish. Could you expand a little more on what you think is wrong with this? Presumably the businessman didn't commit a particuly heinous crime, and you must appreciate that people recieve non-custodial sentences all the time for lesser offences, do you think these count as non-punishments? Why do you believe it necessary for this man to lose his job? Surely ex-cons slipping into legitimate careers immediately after prison is the ideal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
lovely news. I'm spreading this all over Denmark as much as I can, we're already happily imprisoning way more people than our facilities can hold, and the ruling parties are pondering if it'd be a good idea to let (noted mass murderering multi private corporations) G4S and Securitas run private prisons on Danish soil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
Tias posted:lovely news. I'm spreading this all over Denmark as much as I can, we're already happily imprisoning way more people than our facilities can hold, and the ruling parties are pondering if it'd be a good idea to let (noted mass murderering multi private corporations) G4S and Securitas run private prisons on Danish soil. That's what you get when you elect conservatives into office.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
I know. But even the conservatives are railing against VKO, they've lied about nearly everything, and are giving us a dystopian 40K deathocracy instead of the liberal conservative democracy they promised before getting into office. The social democrats suck, but it can only get better from here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Drowning In Terror posted:Could you expand a little more on what you think is wrong with this? Presumably the businessman didn't commit a particuly heinous crime, and you must appreciate that people recieve non-custodial sentences all the time for lesser offences, do you think these count as non-punishments? Why do you believe it necessary for this man to lose his job? Surely ex-cons slipping into legitimate careers immediately after prison is the ideal. To be honest the businessman thing didn't bother me much, the supposedly dangerous individual walking free was. Rehabilitation is ideal when it comes to violent criminals but you don't just have the businessman listen to some counselor telling him that tax evasion/whatever financial crime is bad. However, putting him in jail yet not actually putting him there is just dumb in my opinion and he should instead be fined heftily depending on the crime. Only the man's conscience determines if he's going to repeat the crime if the consequences are nonexistent. This is still just speculation because I only vaguely remember the details.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
Realistically, how much damage do you think this dangerous criminal will really be able to cause on his rampage? Is it really worth making prison more misreable for thousands of other prisoners, and dramatically increasing the recidivism rate just to prevent one from possibly slipping away once in a blue moon?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
Gustav posted:Realistically, how much damage do you think this dangerous criminal will really be able to cause on his rampage? Is it really worth making prison more misreable for thousands of other prisoners, and dramatically increasing the recidivism rate just to prevent one from possibly slipping away once in a blue moon? Ok, well at least that how politicians think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
Gustav posted:Realistically, how much damage do you think this dangerous criminal will really be able to cause on his rampage? Is it really worth making prison more misreable for thousands of other prisoners, and dramatically increasing the recidivism rate just to prevent one from possibly slipping away once in a blue moon? Because I object to having a life sentenced violent criminal walking free on the streets while 'serving' his sentence, I automatically wish to lock 'em all into 1x2m concrete bunkers with only a bunk bed in them, american style. Good job. Also, one slipping away once in a blue moon is a stupid statement if you knew anything about the prisons here. People are occassionally in the news for 'escaping' the finnish prison. Just look at this guy, he did the once in a blue moon quota by himself already by being in the news all the time in the noughties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
Trogdos! posted:Because I object to having a life sentenced violent criminal walking free on the streets while 'serving' his sentence, I automatically wish to lock 'em all into 1x2m concrete bunkers with only a bunk bed in them, american style. Good job. Huh? I never said anything even remotely similar to that. Trogdos! posted:Also, one slipping away once in a blue moon is a stupid statement if you knew anything about the prisons here. People are occassionally in the news for 'escaping' the finnish prison. Just look at this guy, he did the once in a blue moon quota by himself already by being in the news all the time in the noughties. Okay, I clicked the link out of curiosity, and unless I'm overlooking something the worst thing that happened was he held someone hostage and the hostage escaped unharmed? That's unfortunate of course, but if that's the worst case scenario I'd say it falls well within accepted safety margins for any system, prison or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
Gustav posted:Huh? I never said anything even remotely similar to that. I thought you were implying that when you said that my opinion of not letting life sentenced violent criminals walk free during their sentence would make it miserable for thousands of inmates so it sounded like you thought I'd get the maximum security concrete cube system in place if I was the guy pushing the button. I don't think they would be miserable if violent criminals couldn't go on walks in city centres on their own while serving a jail sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Trogdos! posted:I thought you were implying that when you said that my opinion of not letting life sentenced violent criminals walk free during their sentence would make it miserable for thousands of inmates so it sounded like you thought I'd get the maximum security concrete cube system in place if I was the guy pushing the button. I think it's entirely reasonable to detain violent criminals in a completely humane way that makes it difficult to escape. I don't particularly see anything wrong with your position and I don't understand why people are trying to pain it as wanting to have barbaric institutions like ours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
Ftr I said more miserable. Prison always sucks, the only question is how much. No one in prison would ever mistake it for a hotel. And the benchmark of a prison system shouldn't be whether it qualifies as barbaric or not. Just because you could take away this program and still have a humane prison system doesn't mean you should do it. You weigh the good against the bad, and to me the bad seems nebulous at best. "Dangerous criminal loose on the street" sounds terrible, but it's just some guy, it's not godzilla. Most likely he'll be rounded up without incident in a day or two and that will be that. On the other hand the rehabilitative benefits to giving prisoners a sense of autonomy are pretty well established at this point. I'd wager even from a purely pragmatic point of view it's a net gain in crime reduction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:I think it's entirely reasonable to detain violent criminals in a completely humane way that makes it difficult to escape. I don't particularly see anything wrong with your position and I don't understand why people are trying to pain it as wanting to have barbaric institutions like ours. Yeah, that's perfectly reasonable. There are people who just shouldn't be walking the streets (of course that's not a description of the vast majority of people locked up in the US). But they shouldn't be dehumanized either. Give them jobs and some creature comforts. There is a lot of space for our system to improve without it being one extreme or the other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2011 10:55
|
|
|
Exactly. Let them have a TV, an iPod, a radio... paints and canvas, for Christ's sake. Give them something to occupy their time, so that inmates aren't simply working out and fighting/loving/killing each other for "contraband". A.k.a., the most simple of things we take for granted every day: gum, cigarettes, magazines, newspapers, CDs (yes there's other, less savory stuff too), loving tennis shoes and sunglasses. But of course, they're murdering criminal scum, and all that trash is just one more thing that the bloodthirsty addicts will use to "make shivs, and smuggle drugs", like the uncivilized barbarian poo poo they are.   Canada's "Prince of Pot" Marc Emery, who is serving time in a U.S. prison, has been trying to help, in the book department, at least: Bookworm pot prince bugging his U.S. jailers A bit dated. Incidentally, one month after the article, Emery was transferred to Yazoo City Prison in Mississippi.  Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Jul 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:CDs Just let them have MP3 players. I'm with you on everything else, but have you ever intentionally snapped a CD? Those things are sharp. They're sharp and they only hold like 20 songs and you need obsolete equipment to even play them. So I think they would probably mostly be bought because they are sharp.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 04:00
|
|
|
I addressed that in the following paragraph ("make shivs"), albeit in a heavy-handed fashion. And I did mention iPods™.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Just let them have MP3 players. Cords. Maybe we just have to better the system enough so everyone in there is not just trying to fight each other. But I'm sure giving prisoners these things could happen over time. Judging from stories from this thread, there are plenty of other places to start. Also, are there any good articles or overviews of countries with better prison/etc systems? Sorry if something has been posted, this is a long thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
Not sure if it's changed since the Conservative Party started running the country again in '06, but in Canada, you're entitled to (free) sex changes, can vote, and can have a Wiccan priest come by, if that's your religion. Strange, but true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 08:36
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Not sure if it's changed since the Conservative Party started running the country again in '06, but in Canada, you're entitled to (free) sex changes, can vote, and can have a Wiccan priest come by, if that's your religion. Yeah, but those are just the naturalization perks. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 10:21
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:
He also picked up an MRSA infection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Not sure if it's changed since the Conservative Party started running the country again in '06, but in Canada, you're entitled to (free) sex changes, can vote, and can have a Wiccan priest come by, if that's your religion. This has been commonplace in Denmark since at least 2007, dude. But it sounds like you're getting ahead, two thumbs up!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
Thought this an interesting idea for creating better prisons. "Bill James's prison reform idea" http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/07/bill-jamess-prison-reform-idea.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
Nacelle posted:Thought this an interesting idea for creating better prisons. Think of all the substitute/assistant teachers, councillors, and tradesmen the gov could put (back) to work, teaching inmates of 30-man prisons. The inmates might start thinking of themselves as students and group therapy partners, rather than hopeless failures. And COs might start believing that they're in the business of reforming people, rather than jailers of animals. Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Jul 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
Time to call your congressman- H.R. 223: Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2011 Introduced in January by The Great poo poo Wastes Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee, H.R. 223 is a bill intended to get inmates who meet specific criteria out of jail sooner. Under the act, prisoners who have served half of their sentences would be released if they a) are at least 45 years old, b) have never been convicted of a violent crime, and c) haven’t broken any prison rules by engaging in violent conduct. As the prison population ages [5] (one-third of inmates are over the age of 50) and drug offenders continue to sit in cells for decades because of sentencing disparities from the 80s and 90s, Jackson-Lee’s bill is aimed at creating some “relief” for prisoners and reducing the population overall. The congresswoman also introduced the bill in 2007 and 2009. H.R. 1771: Justice Integrity Act of 2011 The Justice Integrity Act is a bill introduced in May by Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen. Unlike bills that focus on prisoners, this bill is more interested in reforming the justice system itself. Introduced to “increase public confidence in the justice system and address any unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal process,” the Justice Integrity Act of 2011 would first require that Attorney General Eric Holder to create a program in 10 states to determine whether race has an impact in prosecution and sentencing, then figure out what to do about it. H.R. 1913: Byrne/JAG Program Accountability Act This is another bill that was introduced in a previous session of Congress, then ignored. Tennessee’s Cohen submitted the bill again in May of this year. H.R. 1913 would amend a 1968 law that provides grants to law enforcement by requiring that officials track and work to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system. H.R. 2065: Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act of 2011 New York Democrat Charles Rangel won’t give up on the Second Chance Act, a bill that would expunge the record of any felon who a) hadn’t been convicted of a violent crime, b) served a full sentence and completed all court-ordered requirements, c) had been free of alcohol or drug dependency for at least a year, d) received a high school diploma or its equivalent, and e) completed a year of community service. Despite setting a bar that would be challenging for many inmates to meet, Rangel has introduced the bill multiple times in the last 10 years to little support. H.R. 2242: Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2011 This is the bill that advocates say is needed to eliminate sentencing disparities in crack cocaine sentencing. Introduced last month by Virginia Democrat Bobby Scott, H.R. 2242 would toss out mandatory minimum sentences and bring the sentencing disparity between crack and cocaine down from 18-to-1 to 1-to-1. This is a reintroduction of the bill Scott submitted in 2009, which, despite support from organizations like the American Bar Association, died in committee.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I thought HR2242 got past last year. I guess it made it past the house but not the senate? Jesus christ. *I'm blind and you addressed this* I will definitely write all my legislators about these. Thanks for making a handy dandy list!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 05:58
|
|
|
I know most people don't consider it kosher to think someone is morally abhorrent for their political beliefs/opinions, but I can't help but think that people who can't stand the idea of prisoners experiencing anything other than suffering (because they're SUBHUMAN MONSTERS! For some reason I hear "subhuman" a lot when discussing criminals) are flat out immoral to the point where I wouldn't want to associate with them. Come to think of it, I feel this way about anyone who prioritizes the suffering of "wrong-doers" above aiding people in need. This is why, even though I act polite/normal, I just can't be friends or respect someone with "standard" conservative views (you'll find that these skewed priorities shape nearly all conservative policies/opinions; it's really uncanny). Of course, this isn't to say that liberals believe the "right" things; in a way, they're even more harmful due to their implicit acceptance of many supply-side-ish economic ideas. But, in general, they at least intend to help people in need and make it a higher priority than punishing "subhuman scum." It just seems to go beyond a mere "difference in approach to solving the same problems." If someone says something about the poor being lazy*, for example, I don't think of it much differently than someone saying something blatantly racist. As a side note, one of the reasons I read this forum is that people like that sociopath advocating mass-execution of all criminals are banned. The same generally goes for most posters with irredeemably stupid beliefs. It seems like these hyper-(pseudo)rational views usually come from people with poor social skills/lack of social integration. Not sure why that is; maybe to separate themselves as being somehow superior/more intelligent? * This agrees with what I mentioned; the top priority is to ensure lazy/bad people don't receive aid, rather than ensuring people in need do receive it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 06:55
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I know most people don't consider it kosher to think someone is morally abhorrent for their political beliefs/opinions, but I can't help but think that people who can't stand the idea of prisoners experiencing anything other than suffering (because they're SUBHUMAN MONSTERS! For some reason I hear "subhuman" a lot when discussing criminals) are flat out immoral to the point where I wouldn't want to associate with them. It's not surprising people have terrible opinions when it comes to punishment, for an incredibly long time punishment was given out primarily to prevent potential criminals from becoming criminals, and secondarily to prevent the criminal from repeating their crime. So naturally when one of the main goals of your justice system is to make examples which you don't want to strive toward, then the entire system is bound to take the abusive path that America has. kind of incoherent, shouldn't post at 2am diphenhydramine fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Jul 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 07:29
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I know most people don't consider it kosher to think someone is morally abhorrent for their political beliefs/opinions, but I can't help but think that people who can't stand the idea of prisoners experiencing anything other than suffering (because they're SUBHUMAN MONSTERS! For some reason I hear "subhuman" a lot when discussing criminals) are flat out immoral to the point where I wouldn't want to associate with them. I think this is the wrong way to look at it. The publics ideology is just as much a slave to the material conditions of the day as the prisoners in the system. When a person sees millions of people going away to rape/slavery camp their brain has basically two options to make sense of the situation: These people are inhuman monsters who deserve it or my entire society is irredeemably broken. In order to function in normal society a person can't go down that rabbit hole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 11:15
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I know most people don't consider it kosher to think someone is morally abhorrent for their political beliefs/opinions, but I can't help but think that people who can't stand the idea of prisoners experiencing anything other than suffering (because they're SUBHUMAN MONSTERS! For some reason I hear "subhuman" a lot when discussing criminals) are flat out immoral to the point where I wouldn't want to associate with them. About subhuman, guess what the German word untermenschen literally translates to?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 13:05
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I think this is the wrong way to look at it. The publics ideology is just as much a slave to the material conditions of the day as the prisoners in the system. When a person sees millions of people going away to rape/slavery camp their brain has basically two options to make sense of the situation: These people are inhuman monsters who deserve it or my entire society is irredeemably broken. In order to function in normal society a person can't go down that rabbit hole. I wouldn't say it's irredeemable, but I can understand people's tendency to view things in black or white.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:I wouldn't say it's irredeemable, but I can understand people's tendency to view things in black or white. Well yeah it's not irredeemable, that was just hyperbole. My point was viewing the prison system as a massive injustice necessarily requires you to look at quite a few other aspects of society as broken and corrupt in order to be logically consistent. That takes a lot of mental effort and requires a moral person to maybe make drastic changes to their lifestyle; most people would rather take the easy "they deserve it" excuse than transform their world view.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I think this is the wrong way to look at it. The publics ideology is just as much a slave to the material conditions of the day as the prisoners in the system. When a person sees millions of people going away to rape/slavery camp their brain has basically two options to make sense of the situation: These people are inhuman monsters who deserve it or my entire society is irredeemably broken. In order to function in normal society a person can't go down that rabbit hole. This comes down to more than ignorance, however. Someone thinking that prisoners do deserve their treatment might just be ignorant. But someone who explicitly says that they would rather bad people be punished than good people be helped is expressing a pretty straightforward moral stance. There's no information that can change their mind, because it's a question of values. I'm also aware that these values as passed down from parents/community to children. It's not like rural, conservative areas have a gene that makes them think this way. But it doesn't change the fact that their values are hosed up, and you can't change what amounts to a personal preference with facts. You can give as many facts as you want about our current system unnecessarily punishing many innocent people, but their very value system makes them not care much. The only thing I can think of that might change their mind is giving negative reinforcement, like one would with someone expressing racist views.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This comes down to more than ignorance, however. Someone thinking that prisoners do deserve their treatment might just be ignorant. But someone who explicitly says that they would rather bad people be punished than good people be helped is expressing a pretty straightforward moral stance. There's no information that can change their mind, because it's a question of values. Yes it is true that no amount of information would change their views. This however is not because they are stubborn or "just raised that way", it is because of the material conditions. The prison system isn't hosed because of peoples opinions, people have the opinions that they do because the prison system is hosed. They start with the assumption that the world is orderly and just, observe that millions are being incarcerated and come to the conclusion that they must deserve it. If they system became more cruel it would have greater support, not less. The way to change their views is to reform the prison system, not give them more information about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 00:47
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Holy poo poo, I thought HR2242 got past last year. I guess it made it past the house but not the senate? Jesus christ. You might be thinking of the earlier bill which brought it down to 18:1 (from 100:1). There was another big victory not too long ago when the Feds agreed to retroactive sentence reductions for offenders jailed under the 100:1 rule. Now, 18:1 is still too high, but it's a lot better than 100:1 and it shows not only Democrats standing up to the GOP and refusing to agree to any deal which didn't keep it under 20:1 and also the impact reform organizations have on legislation- in this case the Sentencing Project- and of course Human Rights Watch being instrumental in getting the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003* passed. *Getting Eric Holder and Obama to comply with this law has proven... somewhat difficult, however.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
Did this post in another thread that will probably be gassed or not read by anyone so I will repost this here in the good thread. Comparing the numbers of people incarcerated in the Soviet Gulags versus those incarcerated in the American Prison System. Authorman posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 10:32
|
|
|
Guessing the gulags had better conditions and fairer sentencing, too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 11:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
shovelbum posted:Guessing the gulags had better conditions and fairer sentencing, too? I can't really comment on the conditions, but considering if you're a black male you are more than 3x as likely to be imprisoned under Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama than under Stalin I think it's pretty obvious how fair the sentencing is. Rutibex fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Jul 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 12:23
|
|