|
Eyeshitinyourserial, I understand that official policy is not to let inmates die off from asthma attacks or have their complaints of being raped by guards be dismissed summarily, but it doesn't stop the fact that these things happen. The fact that they happen at all is unforgivable. Maybe it didn't happen where you worked, maybe you worked somewhere where there genuinely wasn't any guard-condoned prison rape and where no one was left to die from internal bleeding in their cell. It doesn't prove it never happens. The fact is, that stuff happens. i don't think you can deny it happens too often. One female inmate being raped to death and no one being punished is already far beyond acceptable. And it happens pretty dang often in America.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Soi-hah posted:I'm curious: why did the inmate try to do that? Obviously since he was allowed in a unit with decent facilities he must've been pretty well-behaved earlier. I find it very difficult to believe that a person who is afforded (comparatively) enormous privileges will attempt something as drastic as murder without any reason at all. He was transferred after the incident but to a different facility than the one he previously requested. 21stCentury posted:Eyeshitinyourserial, I understand that official policy is not to let inmates die off from asthma attacks or have their complaints of being raped by guards be dismissed summarily, but it doesn't stop the fact that these things happen. The fact that they happen at all is unforgivable. Maybe it didn't happen where you worked, maybe you worked somewhere where there genuinely wasn't any guard-condoned prison rape and where no one was left to die from internal bleeding in their cell. It doesn't prove it never happens. The fact is, that stuff happens. i don't think you can deny it happens too often. I think part of why the facility was run so well was that I worked under quite a few people who had been in the business for 25 years or more. Back when they started, the state's prisons were actually under the jurisdiction of the state's Department of Human Services. The system was set up so that correctional officers were required hold certifications as mental health counselors and preference in hiring was given to those holding a BA or BS in specific fields. Those guys didn't have a host of bureaucracy above their heads that they had to report to or that could handle problems for them so they had to "make it work" where the rubber meets the road. It does irritate me to no end, however, to see things like when Doppelganger made his crack regarding the intelligence of most/all staff (i.e. "But some guy who barely graduated high school and became a corrections officer") and the various and sundry assumptions that all corrections staff are incompetent sadist poo poo-heads on a power trip. To be perfectly candid, I wasn't really comfortable with the amount of power/authority given to me in my position but its part of the job so I dealt with my own personal misgivings. It is in fact part of what lead me to ending up in counseling and on meds within 1 1/2 years of being on the job. I didn't care about a vast majority of the inmates on a personal level, but that didn't mean I didn't care about their general health and well-being. I've put my safety in jeopardy breaking up fights, performed CPR on inmates, and held guys wrists together after they've slashed them in a suicide attempt to keep them from bleeding out before the nurses arrived. It was part of the job. quote:The fact that they happen at all is unforgivable. I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding what I saw/considered the "right" or "better" way to run a prison under the existing system we have. And yes, I do think that as far as the current system goes, for the most part it blows. Incarceration rates are unacceptable. Sentencing is all sorts of hosed up. The fact that we are locking up drug offenders is b.s. - though I don't have a problem locking up the ones who have violent crimes committed in association with their drug offenses. I would like to take the opportunity to dispel one seemingly prevalent myth. For the most part, the drug offenders that I dealt with in prison were there because: A) they were transporting ridiculous amounts of drugs - kg+ of coke? come on B) they have numerous prior drug convictions and this time they finally landed in prison instead of on probation or doing 30 or 60 in county C) they have other violent crimes associated with the drug charge
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
Actually, I'll have to agree that "unforgiveable" is way overblown. But I don't think it's merely "unfortunate" when you realize that this lead to putting the American Prison System on the UN's Human's Rights' watchlist. Just because there's a lot of violence behind bars isn't really a good reason to disregard the treatment of inmates. Of course there's a good chance that putting a lot of violent people under the same roof will lead to squabbles, but treating them like animals, disenfranchising them and making drat sure to tell them that they're worthless certainly doesn't help. But yeah, maybe the facility you worked for was decent, there's still a hell of a lot wrong with the system as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 06:03
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:Just because there's a lot of violence behind bars isn't really a good reason to disregard the treatment of inmates. Of course there's a good chance that putting a lot of violent people under the same roof will lead to squabbles, Now should you just wave your hands in the air and say "Welp, can't stop it so why try?" No, of course not. You bust your rear end to make sure they don't happen to the best of your ability. But to expect all such incidents to be prevented is unrealistic. quote:But yeah, maybe the facility you worked for was decent, there's still a hell of a lot wrong with the system as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 06:59
|
|
|
The thing to ask yourself, if you're a Libertarian or a Conservative, or a proponent of the "deterrence" school of thought, or whatever school of thought that brings you to the "prison should be as unappealing as possible" type of deal- is what kind of man do you want to come out of prison. Most people who go into prison eventually come out, you know, And mostly we stay in our America. You know how rich guys with mansions go on TV and talk about "2 Americas," well they're right. And mostly we just stay in our America, and we never go into your America. But sometimes it happens, and I know you all try and prevent it, but it does happen. We do go to your America sometimes. So when it happens what kind of man do you want in there- in your America- with your flat screen and your nice car; your nice lawn, your nice computer; and your lily-white wife? For deterrence well, look at states with death penalty, and what the offense rates are up in there. If you won't do it for empathy, if you won't do it out of love for the man who killed, and destroyed, and ruined, just because of the fact that he is still a man; and just because you are human and love- really love- all humans, I can understand that. I have lost people to unspeakable violence ( and more often to cops/Joe Arpaio than not), and I absolutely understand the rage, the sadness, the pain and the hurt and the helplessness and the suffering and the futility- and the hate. I spent years wallowing in the hate, letting it fill me, wash over me, consume me. I spent years drowning in it, drowning in the hate. I let it gently caress me- gently caress me in every hole- and spill its seed on my face while I cried and begged and licked up every last drop, my friends murdered, their killer bragging on TV. I let it whisper to me, I let it seduce me, I gave my entire soul over to it, over to the hate; and I became everything I spent a lifetime fighting against- three times over- and I thought I loved it; until I faced that hate, and really learned how to love. So yeah, I Get It, I Get how you feel when you think about those criminals, those people. When they scare you, or steal your stuff, it's me that Gets It; it's me that loves you and prays for you, even as I pray for the thief. I hope that nobody ever really Gets It like I do. Anyway, who gives a poo poo about a burned-out ex-con. If that's not why you think about prison conditions, then like I said, think about it from a position of self-interest: what kind of man do I want coming out, and possibly coming into my America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 07:57
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:Actually, I'll have to agree that "unforgiveable" is way overblown. But I don't think it's merely "unfortunate" when you realize that this lead to putting the American Prison System on the UN's Human's Rights' watchlist. Maybe the point I made earlier is just dead in the water here but I really don't think American prisons are just "what happen" when you put a lot of violent people together in a room. Only about half of the people in prison are violent offenders to begin with, and they're all coming into an environment where violence and predation were not only tolerated historically but even deliberately encouraged by prison administration. It might not actually look the way it does if we really were just taking like "naturally" violent people and putting them behind bars or something like that. I think the criminal justice system in recent history has been transformed into not merely a way of dealing with people who break the law but more significantly a tool of state oppression and terror. Inside the prisons, violence had the very explicit and well understood purpose of fracturing people with otherwise common interests, basically like a divide and conquer kind of thing, and that has since bled through the bars and into the streets and created a kind of feedback loop that I think more plausibly accounts for the uniquely appalling conditions in American's prison system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 08:08
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Wow, this is literally worse than the three-fifths compromise. I realize this was on the site, but it was buried a bit and I think it's worth bringing to the front. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/atlas/anamosa.html "Map is a part of New York Times profiles Anamosa Iowa, where a district is almost entirely people in prison." 58 Constituents, and 1321 Inmates? Have a City Council seat!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 14:04
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:The thing to ask yourself, if you're a Libertarian or a Conservative, or a proponent of the "deterrence" school of thought, or whatever school of thought that brings you to the "prison should be as unappealing as possible" type of deal- is what kind of man do you want to come out of prison. Most people who go into prison eventually come out, you know, And mostly we stay in our America. You know how rich guys with mansions go on TV and talk about "2 Americas," well they're right. And mostly we just stay in our America, and we never go into your America. But sometimes it happens, and I know you all try and prevent it, but it does happen. We do go to your America sometimes. So when it happens what kind of man do you want in there- in your America- with your flat screen and your nice car; your nice lawn, your nice computer; and your lily-white wife? For deterrence well, look at states with death penalty, and what the offense rates are up in there. Anyone who simultaneously believes in 'deterrence' and endorses our current system which largely avoids rehabilitation and instead institutionalizes criminality in prison is either a hypocrite or some sort of racist. My personal belief is that if America is going to make the conscious choice to imprison this many people, to criminalize as much behavior as we have, we also have to make the conscious choice to pay for every prisoner to be rehabilitated in a safe environment. I firmly believe that not everyone can be rehabilitated, but a significant majority can, and our system seems so devoted to stigmatizing those people and forcing them back into a criminal path that it's almost sickening. I mean honestly, why can't felons vote? Why isn't there a universal path to get a felony expunged from your record for applying to jobs? If you look at parole/extended supervision requirements, they ban so much that recidivism is all but a foregone prospect. It really is a shame, but it's a political shame. I try to do what I can to raise awareness/lessen the blow of how terrible the system is, but I'm really just a cog in the machine. Until we have a large constituency of people who care about this sort of thing to combat the 'tough on crime' crowd, I don't think we're going to see any changes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 14:08
|
|
|
mew force shoelace posted:Thats what I am questioning, we have a bad prison system but it's not like we are the first country on earth to have one. As far as I know russian gulags, nazi prison camps and midevil dungeons weren't also rapeatoriums. Gang rape of women and men was endemic to the gulag system. Anne Applebaum's book on the Gulag has a whole section on it - it was usually the vory v zakone or 'thieves in law' - essentially the precursor to the Russian mob doing it to the politicals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:Don't forget all those inmates increase the clout of local politicians, since they get counted as (nonvoting) constituents via the scheme known as prison gerrymandering. Prison gerrymandering is being abolished in New York as of this week, just waiting for the governor to sign it. 3 states down, 47 to go!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:The thing to ask yourself, if you're a Libertarian or a Conservative, or a proponent of the "deterrence" school of thought, or whatever school of thought that brings you to the "prison should be as unappealing as possible" type of deal- is what kind of man do you want to come out of prison. Most people who go into prison eventually come out, you know, And mostly we stay in our America. You know how rich guys with mansions go on TV and talk about "2 Americas," well they're right. And mostly we just stay in our America, and we never go into your America. But sometimes it happens, and I know you all try and prevent it, but it does happen. We do go to your America sometimes. So when it happens what kind of man do you want in there- in your America- with your flat screen and your nice car; your nice lawn, your nice computer; and your lily-white wife? For deterrence well, look at states with death penalty, and what the offense rates are up in there. My favorite illustration of this was when my sister's boyfriend (at the time) visited Sweden. He was the son of an admiral in the Mexican Navy (or something like that) and had bodyguards watching him 24/7. When he came to Sweden my sister brought him to visit my aunt. She and her husband lives in an insanely expensive house in the middle of Stockholm. Combined, they're probably worth north of the equivalent of 200 million dollars. 99% of the time he was in their house he was freaking out at the lack of alarm systems, secure locks on the door, video surveillance and body guards. Their kid walks to school alone. Needless to say, that would be beyond unthinkable in Mexico. Why the ridiculously rich don't lobby for high taxes and all the welfare you can give is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
Hedenius posted:This is what I don't get. Why on earth don't the rich folks think about what their lives will turn in to once the Ayn Rand scenario hits? Prisons are welfare. It's just in the form of an industry, similar to defense/high-tech or pharmaceuticals. I've seen it referred to as "carceral Keynesianism" and that sounds about right--the expansion of prisons have helped to bridge some of the employment gap left by globalization and general capital crisis, both by sucking up members of the underclass into an economic purgatory and by employing a great deal of low-skill labor at actually fairly lucrative wages. So if you aren't an engineer but you still want to live off the taxpayer dime and don't mind being a part of the carnage you can do pretty well in prison administration. If you're asking why, however, there isn't like welfare in the form of an education-industrial-complex, it should be obvious why the rich don't want that at all. Social safety nets of any kind--welfare, public healthcare, and so on--are manifestly beneficial to labor because it makes it a lot easier to organize and strike if necessary. Employers just don't have as much power when employees aren't utterly terrified of losing their financial life line.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 20:19
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Anyone who simultaneously believes in 'deterrence' and endorses our current system which largely avoids rehabilitation and instead institutionalizes criminality in prison is either a hypocrite or some sort of racist. Believe it or not, Arizona of all places actually has a simple and streamlined process for getting your civil rights back after a felony conviction. Your rights to vote, hold public office, and serve as a juror are automatically restored after a set time (first time only), and you can even have the right to own a gun* back by simply mailing in this form (pdf). The form's also used to restore the other rights if you've got more than one conviction, or if you were convicted in federal court/out of state. *Does not apply to certain offenses With the gun thing, it's a little different when you were convicted in a federal or military court (like me). AZ might give you the right back, but for federal/military charges, the ATF has to approve the restoration. But since 69 people re-offended (out of 22,000) after getting back their guns, a law was passed that eliminated all funding for restoration requests. So you application doesn't get denied (you can appeal a denial), it just doesn't get processed at all, and in a unanimous decision the Supreme Court said that the policy "precludes any & all judicial review." Due to some pretty unusual particulars of my case (don't ask), there's some question as to whether I'd even fail the NICS (instant backround check). The lawyer says to just try it, since if you fail the check you don't get in trouble, but I don't want to wind up on some list somewhere as having tried to buy one; and I don't really need or want one. I'm not really anti-gun, they just always seemed more of a talisman to me. My partner has one though, and shoots it a lot, always hits the bullseye, etc, so I guess I kind of have that covered anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:Believe it or not, Arizona of all places actually has a simple and streamlined process for getting your civil rights back after a felony conviction. Your rights to vote, hold public office, and serve as a juror are automatically restored after a set time (first time only), and you can even have the right to own a gun* back by simply mailing in this form (pdf). The form's also used to restore the other rights if you've got more than one conviction, or if you were convicted in federal court/out of state. Well that's good. Restoring voting rights and expunging records are two of the main post-release reforms we need. On the NICS note, apparently the background check I got applying for the Attorney General's office raised red flags slowed down my approval.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
I know this is the 'prison thread' but in terms of alternative corrections I'm working on creating a documentary following 5+ parolee's and probationers over a long period of time. If anyone has any ideas please feel free to share. A lot of this is going to be coming from a restorative justice perspective, focusing on the division that crime causes in our community that is only widened by incarceration without rehabilitation or restoration of the divide. Link to the Creative Conventions thread here for any and all suggestions. I have a great deal of experience in corrections and really want to put it to work and show people parole. Prison usually gets a crazy amount of airtime comparatively, but parole is actually it's own world in the correctional system that should be explored for a fully encompassing perspective of crime.: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3335811 To add something of substance, one of the best concepts that is growing because of it's first few waves of reduced recidivism is restorative justice. With the justice system hemmoraging money, states are now beginning to implement their own restorative justice programs. The basic concept is fairly simple. In a purely static world there is community when a crime is committed, it injures the community and separates two people from that community (typically) creating a criminal and a victim. The only way to fully incorporate both parties back into the community (the criminal truly feeling he's paid his debt, and the victim feeling that they've been tended to) is to have the criminal repair whatever harm he/she has caused in the most direct manner possible. Restorative justice is the process, from counseling to mediation to victim impact panels, that allows the two fragmented parties victimized by crime to heal and join society again. Several states have implemented their own RJ policies. Minnesota, RI, TX, NY, and even MI have begun implementing these programs, albeit on the juvenile front only for the most part. mugrim fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Aug 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
mugrim posted:I know this is the 'prison thread' but in terms of alternative corrections I'm working on creating a documentary following 5+ parolee's and probationers over a long period of time. If anyone has any ideas please feel free to share.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:The thing to ask yourself, if you're a Libertarian or a Conservative, or a proponent of the "deterrence" school of thought, or whatever school of thought that brings you to the "prison should be as unappealing as possible" type of deal- is what kind of man do you want to come out of prison. Most people who go into prison eventually come out, you know, And mostly we stay in our America. You know how rich guys with mansions go on TV and talk about "2 Americas," well they're right. And mostly we just stay in our America, and we never go into your America. But sometimes it happens, and I know you all try and prevent it, but it does happen. We do go to your America sometimes. So when it happens what kind of man do you want in there- in your America- with your flat screen and your nice car; your nice lawn, your nice computer; and your lily-white wife? For deterrence well, look at states with death penalty, and what the offense rates are up in there. I strongly get the impression that people who view "prison as deterrent" don't even think of people coming out. As in if the system was working the way they envision it, either no one is going in or the people going in are going in for life. In their minds recidivism is like saying "I was in prison, I experienced it fully and I have chosen to commit crimes again because that punishment wasn't harsh enough." If you are coming out of jail and not fully admonished and repentant for your actions you simply weren't punished enough. This is insane! It's mixing two really dangerous assumptions. That people are well informed rational actors (preforming some sort of rational cost/benefit comparison on committing a crime) thus with sufficiently steep penalties for breaking the law no one would do so. It's demonstrably wrong and we've got centuries of history with steep and stiff punishment for criminals. It doesn't work and it actively harms society to keep doing this poo poo to convicts. It doesn't help matters that people have deeply confused the difference between justice and vengeance. Of course, angry people are very motivated people. Anger and outrage are forces which can be directly tapped for political currency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 02:09
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro, would it be alright if I directly copied the old thread's OP and posted it elsewhere?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 06:54
|
|
|
Haschel Cedricson posted:HidingFromGoro, would it be alright if I directly copied the old thread's OP and posted it elsewhere? As long as it's not for profit, go for it. If it does generate revenue, then go ahead and donate the proceeds to justdetention.org either anonymously or "on behalf of the victims of Joe Arpaio."
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
Cross posted from the LF thread.A.S.H. posted:Here's an interesting local article from back in May.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
A.S.H. posted:Cross posted from the LF thread. No because there's nothing left to cut. CA cut spending (cut corners) with their prison medical so bad it had to be entirely taken over by a federal receivership- and they're still in hot water over it. CA's been stacking guys three high in basketball gyms for years- they can't afford cells. The other thread shows facilities where they don't even have beds, and the inmates just sleep on the floor or in hallways. People have to pay rent to go to jail now in many states, and others don't even feed the inmates three times a day. Libraries and recreation were cut long ago, and special legislation is the only thing keeping many rehabilitation/education programs on life support. Some AZ prisons don't even do programs anymore- of any kind- except GED tutoring, and even that's done largely by unpaid volunteers. The entire AZ correctional system is in violation of every applicable fire code- I'm talking like 394 out of 400 alarms & sprinklers nonfunctional, things like that. Riker's is actually physically falling apart... the maintenance and sanitation nationwide has been neglected for so long in order to save money that swarms of rats chew off fingers in IL (because the inmates sleep on the floor). On and on, you name it, and it's already been cut- and this predates the recession by years or decades. As much work as is possible is either done by inmates or contractors, and then there's the whole issue of privatization of the system. If the contractors weren't so incompetent, corrupt, and plagued with cost overruns to the point where they cost states more than they save; who knows maybe the whole Machine would be private by now. So there's literally nothing left to cut except staff pay, or just letting people out. That's why CA is facing having to let out 40,000 people- that's not being done as a favor to the inmates, it's just that there is absolutely no other option on the table. I mean, they could try and cut pay for the staff, but that'll just get you laughed out of the room by the union- and even then, are lower-paid, worse-trained, and less-professional guards what CA inmates need? I think that the outreach and juvenile-intervention stuff is very important, and I don't view them as opposing things to compete over money (this isn't and shouldn't be a "market" type situation after all). The Machine is a totality, an ecosystem, all the parts are interconnected and affect each other in different ways. Preventative measures are better than reaction measures to be sure, at the same time when someone goes into confinement the attitude I have with the government is "you asked for him, you got him" meaning you got what you wanted, you got this guy in a cage; and now like the kid who got the puppy on Christmas you have an ongoing responsibility. That costs money so when you run out, well your the government, raise taxes- raise them double on the "tough on crime" people. "Tough on crime" Republicans/Tea Party are coincidentally the "low taxes" people, so let them know hey we'll pass 3-strikes, we'll increase sentences, and here's how much you will pay for that. That will kill that "tough on crime" poo poo quick. And take the outreach, the diversion, the restorative justice stuff Mugrim posts; take that for adults as well as juveniles. Do it everywhere, all the time. It really saves a lot of money. The guy in Texas I posted, he was going to get 60 years in prison (for drugs), and instead they did probation + a reading club. A reading club. And not only does the reading club reduce recidivism by over half, it's astronomically cheaper. It costs $50K/year to keep someone in prison- and that's assuming the person is a healthy 30-year old. This guy was in his mid-40's. It gets a hell of a lot more expensive as the inmate ages, requiring treatment for chronic disease, heart problems, geriatric care, and all the rest. There's nothing to figure out here- incarceration is very expensive, and there's almost nothing you can do to someone that will cost more than putting them in prison. HidingFromGoro fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Aug 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 00:33
|
|
|
Cross-posted from Cops on the Beat so as not to derail:ToxicFrog posted:"At least half the people in prison don't deserve to be there" is not the same as "at least half the people in prison are innocent of any crime", and I'm pretty sure that's what Joat Mon and Dusty Jeffers are getting at. It's not that most of the people in prison haven't broken any laws; it's that the laws they have broken either shouldn't exist in the first place or carry massively disproportionate punishments. I think there is good reason to suspect that a large minority of prisoners have not actually committed a crime. Our ridiculous bail and plea bargain system mean simply being accused of a crime is often enough to destroy ones life without any respect to something like due process or whathaveyou. But the thing is if you try to understand criminality and the prison population in terms of "what these people have done" it never matches up right. You have to look at criminality rather as a class populated according to "who they are" in order to get the numbers to match up. Like, it does seem to be the case that almost everyone has broken a federal law at some point in their lives. There is just an amazing amount of things that are against the law to the point that enforcement is mostly a joke because no one even has the ability to know what is and is not a crime. The key is largely how we are to construe the class "criminals" as opposed to the class "law-abiders", which thanks in part to the rhetorical strategies of the gun control lobby and "tough on crime" politicians, has taken on significant semantic baggage that is much more complex to unpack than simply whether or not one has committed a crime (or even a violent crime). I think it should be very obvious by now that regardless of how you choose to analyze the concept of a "criminal", in practice the term is purely political, and universally understood to mean "the lower class"--in other words, the poor, minority groups, disenfranchised youth, whatever people who aren't middle class suburban WASPs and higher do is what criminals do. And this largely explains crimes of "public order" and "vice", which almost always have two versions--there's like a real serious charge which we might have a legitimate case for prosecuting as a matter of public interest, and then there are things that are a bit sketchier. It's very easy to be guilty of a crime of vice or public order just as a matter of course in certain parts of the country, and it's not at all clear that if this species of law were to stop being enforced tomorrow then civilization as we know it would collapse. So the obvious example is that there is probably a good case to enforce laws against drug trafficking, but drug abuse is highly debatable. Its clearly in the public interest to prevent human trafficking, but prostitution again is just a bit more fuzzy. Drunk driving yes, but public drunkenness? Eh. Crime is just a tricky thing like that. It's a much more elastic, fuzzy kind of concept than simply "whatever the law says". In fact it is perilously easy to fall into the class of "criminal" according to the casual, commonly understood use of the word even when you have not, strictly speaking, committed a crime. And the reverse is also true--plenty of people who are guilty of seriously heinous and costly crimes are not deemed to be criminals in the typical person's estimation. So in a really insidious sense, the majority of people in prison are criminals--like 99% even. Whether, in some legal sense or factual sense, they have committed a crime is a different story, and that's the disparity that needs to be accounted for. But it doesn't do any good to go through all the cases and talk about "have these prisoners, as a matter of law or fact, commited a crime?", because that just isn't what the criminal justice system is interested in. Crime is not an act but an identity. Woozy fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Aug 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 16:41
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Cross-posted from Cops on the Beat so as not to derail: I'm not normally a fan of Ayn Rand, but she had a point with this one: quote:There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. In this modern age everyone is a criminal. There are too many laws for it not to be so and too many of those laws are for things that under the right circumstances aren't harmful to society. The real law of the land is class. Ever notice that when a poor black man gets caught with drugs he goes away for many years, but when a white celebrity is in the same situation they get probation and rehab? Or the man who steals car stereos getting 10 years when the banker who steals billions gets 3? Heck even the disproportional amount of blacks in prison. When everyone is a criminal if you look deep enough going to jail depends on if the police/prosecutor/judge like and feel sympathy for you. Police are middle class and judges upper middle so they sympathize with their own. The real upper class, the top 0.1% with financial and political power are mostly immune from the law. Just ask Richard Nixon or Dick Cheney, or any senator who enjoys institutional graft. An aristocracy by any other name... Rutibex fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Aug 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Or the man who steals car stereos getting 10 years when the banker who steals billions gets 3? Then again, i wonder, what does a banker have to gain or give back to society that needs him in prison? A Banker who steals billions and is found out is pretty hosed. What does jail time do to him? Then again, I guess this doesn't work if the American Criminal Justice System is officially punitive and not rehabilitative, but I still wonder, where do white collar criminals go in a rehabilitative prison system?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 17:56
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:Then again, i wonder, what does a banker have to gain or give back to society that needs him in prison? A Banker who steals billions and is found out is pretty hosed. What does jail time do to him? Personally I would have that banker meet with and apologize to every single person he screwed over with insider trading or whatever. Look them in the eyes and say: "Yes I destroyed your retirement fund, which you worked your entire life for in order to add a small fraction to my own wealth". I think it would be an eye opening experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 18:36
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:Then again, i wonder, what does a banker have to gain or give back to society that needs him in prison? A Banker who steals billions and is found out is pretty hosed. What does jail time do to him? Michael Milken is back and making cash hand over foot. Worth $2.1 billion
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 18:39
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:Then again, i wonder, what does a banker have to gain or give back to society that needs him in prison? A Banker who steals billions and is found out is pretty hosed. What does jail time do to him? Please explain what jail time does for anyone that bankers should be a unique case?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
mew force shoelace posted:Please explain what jail time does for anyone that bankers should be a unique case? I'm not saying Bankers should be a unique case. I'm saying that White Collar criminals don't really fit in a rehabilitation-based criminal justice system like, say, murderers or burglars. Let's say you murdered someone, you might have mental issues or got involved in a gang. Let's say you're a burglar or a drug dealer? What you did is probably motivated by how easy it seemed to steal/deal drugs rather than get a job with the limited skills you have. This can be fixed in a rehabilitative institution, somewhere that gives you the tools needed to integrate into society. White collar criminals, Bankers and Ponzi schemers, they don't do it because they need money, they do it because they want absurd amounts of money. It's not something that can be "fixed" since it's something that has to be planned long beforehand. What they're doing is wrong, but it's not motivated by lack of ressources. So in a country with a good rehabilitative justice system, where do white collar criminals go and why?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 19:00
|
|
|
If you're a risk-seeking crazy who wants billions when you already have millions you probably need some kind of psychiatric care. People don't require rehabilitation because they are violent as such or in need of money, they do it because their behaviour is bad. Non-violent behaviour can also be bad!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Personally I would have that banker meet with and apologize to every single person he screwed over with insider trading or whatever. Look them in the eyes and say: "Yes I destroyed your retirement fund, which you worked your entire life for in order to add a small fraction to my own wealth". I think it would be an eye opening experience. I think you completely overestimate their sympathy and empathy. These aren't exactly touchy feely people who give a poo poo about the lives of anyone outside their circle. They typically knew what they were doing and did it anyways. They answer every societal problem with a mantra of personal responsibility. They may say all you have them say, but really they'll be thinking "Well you're a loving idiot".
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
chelsea clinton posted:If you're a risk-seeking crazy who wants billions when you already have millions you probably need some kind of psychiatric care. People don't require rehabilitation because they are violent as such or in need of money, they do it because their behaviour is bad. Non-violent behaviour can also be bad! Wait, so Criminals need rehabilitation because their behavior is Bad? So, what is rehabilitation for you? I mean, do you treat every criminal the same way since they're all the same thing (criminals)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:I'm not saying Bankers should be a unique case. I'm saying that White Collar criminals don't really fit in a rehabilitation-based criminal justice system like, say, murderers or burglars. What in the world are you trying to say? It sounds like white collar crimes don't fit into your world view because you have an extremely odd worldview that is some sort of bizzaro reverse 'just world' hypothesis where all criminals are all driven by a sole outside factor that could be fixed or something? but that excepts white collar crime for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 19:32
|
|
|
mugrim posted:I think you completely overestimate their sympathy and empathy. These aren't exactly touchy feely people who give a poo poo about the lives of anyone outside their circle. They typically knew what they were doing and did it anyways. They answer every societal problem with a mantra of personal responsibility. They may say all you have them say, but really they'll be thinking "Well you're a loving idiot". I disagree. Humans are social animals, empathy for people is innate. Screwing over "someone" who to you is just a number on a spread sheet if psychologically different than screwing someone you have sat down and talked to. Unless white collar criminals are disproportionally sociopaths (and I wouldn't doubt if that was the case, but would need to see some evidence) then it would have an effect. Not to mention that in such cases the sheer volume of people you would have to apologize to would have to have an impact. Painting the rich as monsters with no morals is exactly the same bias as the rich painting the poor as worthless leeches. When it comes down to it they are as human as anyone and as bound by luck an circumstances as anyone else. You work in restorative justice correct? I assume that involves confronting criminals with the impact of their crimes. How many regret what they have done afterwords?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:Wait, so Criminals need rehabilitation because their behavior is Bad? Well, yes, this is what it boils down to. If your behaviour causes harm and other undesirable effects it's quite likely that you need to change it. The exact way it causes harm at most influences what kind of rehabilitation you need. Embezzlement and other economic crimes is bad behaviour and needs to be corrected as much as armed robbery does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
I'm expressing myself pretty spectacularly terribly today. What I'm trying to say is, I don't really see how you can rehabilitate people guilty of high caliber white collar crimes, like the "the banker who steals billions gets 3 [years]". So i'm wondering what you wonderful people think should be done with white collar criminals in a rehabilitative justice system, since i have little trouble imagining what would be done with gang members, burglars and murderers. I'm not saying white collar criminals need to go uncorrected as much as i don't see where they fit in a purely rehabilitative system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:I'm expressing myself pretty spectacularly terribly today. People are trying to point out that there isn't a huge difference in the mind set of these people. What is the difference between a gang and a country club besides level of funding and success? If the system works for poor people it should work for rich people, because they are both people and there is really a lot of common ground.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 20:37
|
|
|
I guess I misunderstand how a rehabilitative system works, then. I believed the point of the rehabilitative system was to give people the tools to reintegrate society properly. In other words, skills that would lead to gainful employment without resorting to illegal activities in addition to counseling and possibly psychiatric treatment. but i guess it's true that the second half of that should work for rich and poor regardless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
Yay... in New Zealand they are rolling out a 3 strike policy with the upcoming law "reform" and we are no venturing in private prisons even though the last time we have a private business run a prison the average cost was 15% higher per prisoner. I feel I would like to help stop these changes. But politicians are like attack dogs. It takes a very loud noise to scare them into stopping.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
I've been told the NZ three-strikes law is nothing like ours. Like 3 strikes and you're in for 10. This is the country where your most infamous murders get like 35 years if I recall correct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
21stCentury posted:I guess I misunderstand how a rehabilitative system works, then. I believed the point of the rehabilitative system was to give people the tools to reintegrate society properly. In other words, skills that would lead to gainful employment without resorting to illegal activities in addition to counseling and possibly psychiatric treatment. Well the problem we see here with the case of the embezzler and the armed robber is that you are seeing them as wholly separate entities when they are two people dealing with societal pressures in ways that diverge only in class restricted ways. American (and most of Western society) glorifies the accumulation of wealth, that the purpose of life is to get paid as much money as you can so you can be richer than your parents and set up your children to be richer than you. So we see that the motive for both the embezzler and the armed robber are the same, so we must look at why they take the avenue that they do. The rich embezzler does not take up a gun because he does not need to. He can use his insider access provided for him by his parents wealth and his higher social status arising from it. The average armed robber never got the chance to network at Dartmouth alumni banquets nor are entrusted with millions/billions of dollars that aren't his own. So the robber takes the route that is available to him and knocks over the local liquor store. They both accept the goals of wealth accumulation, but both 'innovate' and find illegitimate ways to attain it. This behavior whether with the computer or the gun is what would need to be rehabilitated. Of course, the American prison system is anything but rehabilitative and that armed robber is in prison because it is cheaper (and more profitable for interested parties) than providing a social safety net, but that is another point. Authorman fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 08:30
|
|
