Are we causing most of our problems?

[HeyYou]

Your entire reasoning is based on the assumption that harsher punishments are a better deterrent.

 

Selective quoting...I know. :thumbsup: However...

 

Better policing, a judiciary willing to actually enforce the penalties proscribed in law, and a much smaller number of scumbag lawyers who defend and appeal simply because they get paid to (finding a lawyer who does the Right Thing and not the Legal Thing...it's a pipedream of mine :rolleyes: )...all of these would make for a significant reduction in the rate of crime.

 

But that costs money. Something which appears to be in short supply at the moment. In fact, one of the favorite things for politicians to try and save money on, is Law Enforcement. (not to mention education.....)

 

What Marharth doesn't seem to quite get a grasp on is, Exile to a different society is EXACTLY what prisons are. When you throw a bunch of violent offenders together, what do you EXPECT to get? Do you think if we exiled them to some small island, and kept adding yet MORE violent offenders, that they would form a society that was NOT based on violence? That is pretty flippin' delusional.

[marharth]

Your entire reasoning is based on the assumption that harsher punishments are a better deterrent.

 

Selective quoting...I know. :thumbsup: However...

 

Better policing, a judiciary willing to actually enforce the penalties proscribed in law, and a much smaller number of scumbag lawyers who defend and appeal simply because they get paid to (finding a lawyer who does the Right Thing and not the Legal Thing...it's a pipedream of mine :rolleyes: )...all of these would make for a significant reduction in the rate of crime.

 

But that costs money. Something which appears to be in short supply at the moment. In fact, one of the favorite things for politicians to try and save money on, is Law Enforcement. (not to mention education.....)

 

What Marharth doesn't seem to quite get a grasp on is, Exile to a different society is EXACTLY what prisons are. When you throw a bunch of violent offenders together, what do you EXPECT to get? Do you think if we exiled them to some small island, and kept adding yet MORE violent offenders, that they would form a society that was NOT based on violence? That is pretty flippin' delusional.

This is what people seem to think when I say "different society."

 

The difference between exile and moving someone is that exile implies that they are being taken from everything native to them.

 

Prisons still exist on your home land, they still have the same people, and visiting times are possible. I would not consider that complete exile, if exile at all.

 

I am not saying throw prisoners on a island with no guards, I am saying make prisons a bit more human so they act more as a separator and a rehabilitation program then a punishment.

[HeyYou]

Your entire reasoning is based on the assumption that harsher punishments are a better deterrent.

 

Selective quoting...I know. :thumbsup: However...

 

Better policing, a judiciary willing to actually enforce the penalties proscribed in law, and a much smaller number of scumbag lawyers who defend and appeal simply because they get paid to (finding a lawyer who does the Right Thing and not the Legal Thing...it's a pipedream of mine :rolleyes: )...all of these would make for a significant reduction in the rate of crime.

 

But that costs money. Something which appears to be in short supply at the moment. In fact, one of the favorite things for politicians to try and save money on, is Law Enforcement. (not to mention education.....)

 

What Marharth doesn't seem to quite get a grasp on is, Exile to a different society is EXACTLY what prisons are. When you throw a bunch of violent offenders together, what do you EXPECT to get? Do you think if we exiled them to some small island, and kept adding yet MORE violent offenders, that they would form a society that was NOT based on violence? That is pretty flippin' delusional.

This is what people seem to think when I say "different society."

 

The difference between exile and moving someone is that exile implies that they are being taken from everything native to them.

 

Prisons still exist on your home land, they still have the same people, and visiting times are possible. I would not consider that complete exile, if exile at all.

 

I am not saying throw prisoners on a island with no guards, I am saying make prisons a bit more human so they act more as a separator and a rehabilitation program then a punishment.

 

And how do you propose to do that? How do you propose to PAY for it? Folks have tried convincing prisons to become "for profit" businesses, but, that never really went well, (due to human nature, oddly enough)

 

If you make prisons a "nice", or even "reasonable" place to be, they lose their deterrent value. Rehabilitation was tried before too..... that didn't turn out very well either. Recidivism rates remained unchanged.

[Vagrant0]

If you make prisons a "nice", or even "reasonable" place to be, they lose their deterrent value. Rehabilitation was tried before too..... that didn't turn out very well either. Recidivism rates remained unchanged.

Not really... The problem is that "nice" and "reasonable" doesn't exist in the vocabulary of many prisoners. Sometimes if you treat people like animals, they will behave like animals, true. But some will behave like animals, or worse simply because you are being "nice" and therefore are seen as "weak" and open to threat or exploitation. When you have prison overcrowding and a clogged system like we have, rehabilitation is practically impossible on any angle. Some gang leaders even like prison because they can still call orders back home and are virtually untouchable inside (ie, smuggled in cellphones, drugs, ect which the current program can't do anything to stop). Even a low security prison just is not an environment for any sort of rehabilitation.

 

As for the island idea... Doesn't work since what usually develops is a pinnacle of barbarism that would still end up encroaching into outside society either by escapes or by criminal connections.

 

The reality is that we as a society need to make some hard decisions and accept that some people cannot or refuse to be rehabilitated and that their continued presence in the system only serves to tax and destabilize it. Yes, this leads to a whole lot of moral questions, but at some point you have to either put aside sentiments of justice for cold logic, or accept that these people will continue to be a burden and to treat them aside from others so that the burden may be lessened. At the moment, we're doing neither and are busy standing in the corner trying to convince ourselves that there is no problem.

[Keanumoreira]

If you make prisons a "nice", or even "reasonable" place to be, they lose their deterrent value. Rehabilitation was tried before too..... that didn't turn out very well either. Recidivism rates remained unchanged.

Not really... The problem is that "nice" and "reasonable" doesn't exist in the vocabulary of many prisoners. Sometimes if you treat people like animals, they will behave like animals, true. But some will behave like animals, or worse simply because you are being "nice" and therefore are seen as "weak" and open to threat or exploitation. When you have prison overcrowding and a clogged system like we have, rehabilitation is practically impossible on any angle. Some gang leaders even like prison because they can still call orders back home and are virtually untouchable inside (ie, smuggled in cellphones, drugs, ect which the current program can't do anything to stop). Even a low security prison just is not an environment for any sort of rehabilitation.

 

As for the island idea... Doesn't work since what usually develops is a pinnacle of barbarism that would still end up encroaching into outside society either by escapes or by criminal connections.

 

The reality is that we as a society need to make some hard decisions and accept that some people cannot or refuse to be rehabilitated and that their continued presence in the system only serves to tax and destabilize it. Yes, this leads to a whole lot of moral questions, but at some point you have to either put aside sentiments of justice for cold logic, or accept that these people will continue to be a burden and to treat them aside from others so that the burden may be lessened. At the moment, we're doing neither and are busy standing in the corner trying to convince ourselves that there is no problem.

 

I agree completely, but there is still the matter of pleasing both the needs of the people (safety comes to mind), and those punished. Surely we can't kill all of them (I am against the death penalty btw, but just to say if this was a way to eradicate low lifes, what would be the cost resource and moral wise)? Surely there are other solutions that don't include a burden (or at least to a lower point) of some kind and senseless cruelty.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Keanumoreira

[Vagrant0]

I agree completely, but there is still the matter of pleasing both the needs of the people (safety comes to mind), and those punished. Surely we can't kill all of them (I am against the death penalty btw, but just to say if this was a way to eradicate low lifes, what would be the cost resource and moral wise)? Surely there are other solutions that don't include a burden (or at least to a lower point) of some kind and senseless cruelty.

Frontal lobotomies, shackles, and menial labor? What, you said senseless cruelty, as in cruelty without a purpose. I didn't say it was a pleasant solution. Frankly, if given the option of either a quick and painless death, or having a part of your brain cut out to leave you a drooling shadow of your former self forced to work some repetitive task for the rest of your life; most would take death. Short of this, nothing else that has occurred to anyone, or is practical with current technology/needs works consistently enough. Aren't moral dilemmas fun?

[Keanumoreira]

I agree completely, but there is still the matter of pleasing both the needs of the people (safety comes to mind), and those punished. Surely we can't kill all of them (I am against the death penalty btw, but just to say if this was a way to eradicate low lifes, what would be the cost resource and moral wise)? Surely there are other solutions that don't include a burden (or at least to a lower point) of some kind and senseless cruelty.

Frontal lobotomies, shackles, and menial labor? What, you said senseless cruelty, as in cruelty without a purpose. I didn't say it was a pleasant solution. Frankly, if given the option of either a quick and painless death, or having a part of your brain cut out to leave you a drooling shadow of your former self forced to work some repetitive task for the rest of your life; most would take death. Short of this, nothing else that has occurred to anyone, or is practical with current technology/needs works consistently enough. Aren't moral dilemmas fun?

 

Well, yeah, but EVERYONE? :ermm:

[marharth]

Your entire reasoning is based on the assumption that harsher punishments are a better deterrent.

 

Selective quoting...I know. :thumbsup: However...

 

Better policing, a judiciary willing to actually enforce the penalties proscribed in law, and a much smaller number of scumbag lawyers who defend and appeal simply because they get paid to (finding a lawyer who does the Right Thing and not the Legal Thing...it's a pipedream of mine :rolleyes: )...all of these would make for a significant reduction in the rate of crime.

 

But that costs money. Something which appears to be in short supply at the moment. In fact, one of the favorite things for politicians to try and save money on, is Law Enforcement. (not to mention education.....)

 

What Marharth doesn't seem to quite get a grasp on is, Exile to a different society is EXACTLY what prisons are. When you throw a bunch of violent offenders together, what do you EXPECT to get? Do you think if we exiled them to some small island, and kept adding yet MORE violent offenders, that they would form a society that was NOT based on violence? That is pretty flippin' delusional.

This is what people seem to think when I say "different society."

 

The difference between exile and moving someone is that exile implies that they are being taken from everything native to them.

 

Prisons still exist on your home land, they still have the same people, and visiting times are possible. I would not consider that complete exile, if exile at all.

 

I am not saying throw prisoners on a island with no guards, I am saying make prisons a bit more human so they act more as a separator and a rehabilitation program then a punishment.

 

And how do you propose to do that? How do you propose to PAY for it? Folks have tried convincing prisons to become "for profit" businesses, but, that never really went well, (due to human nature, oddly enough)

 

If you make prisons a "nice", or even "reasonable" place to be, they lose their deterrent value. Rehabilitation was tried before too..... that didn't turn out very well either. Recidivism rates remained unchanged.

The prisoners would work jobs, most of the profit from the jobs would go straight back into the system.

 

Rehabilitation is stilled claimed to be being tried. It was never tried, that has been a lie for years to make people think the prison system is fine.

 

For profit prisons do fine currently, and they do much better then public prisons. I am pretty sure most of the prisons in the US are private prisons now.

 

As for the rest, read vagrants post.

[Vagrant0]

Well, yeah, but EVERYONE? :ermm:

Well, no... That would be senseless.

 

Such things would naturally only be reserved for those who both suggest no redeemable value to society or who show little potential for rehabilitation. If someone wants to improve their situation and repay society for their crimes, they should be given the chance, but there are clearly those who don't care for such things and are instead just choking the system and creating a hazard for other prisoners and prison staff. A lobotomy only treats violent or psychotic tendencies anyway, so would not make sense for something like theft or minor violent crimes.

[LadyMilla]

Frontal lobotomies, shackles, and menial labor? What, you said senseless cruelty, as in cruelty without a purpose. I didn't say it was a pleasant solution. Frankly, if given the option of either a quick and painless death, or having a part of your brain cut out to leave you a drooling shadow of your former self forced to work some repetitive task for the rest of your life; most would take death. Short of this, nothing else that has occurred to anyone, or is practical with current technology/needs works consistently enough. Aren't moral dilemmas fun?

 

Again, this debate will boil down to the basic issue of whether the judicial process that leads to conviction is reliable enough to exclude irreparable damage to innocents. You already said in an old debate that you were willing to shoulder the risk of being treated unfairly (including being condemned in spite of your innocence) should such circumstances arise. I am not (and apparently, most of the European countries are not either). Courts, juries and law enforcement - they are all man created systems that combine all the good and bad human qualities of those who operate them, and as such, they are prone to error and abuse. Unlike other systems (e.g. medical care) that are also prone to error, the irreparable damage to innocents in this case can be eliminated because the damage is caused by a willful act (the systems is allowed by the legislators to do irreparable damage) and not by individual negligence or the uncertainties of the medical processes that can only be reduced through the progress of science.

 

Just a recent example of how prosecution may go awry: VA. Judge throws out drug dealer's death sentence in slaying

 

Quote: "Jackson found that Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert and his assistant, Richard A. Conway, supported the use of false testimony from the admitted shooter to link Wolfe to the slaying; failed to disclose evidence that others in the drug ring might have wanted to kill Petrole; and orchestrated testimony of key witnesses, among other irregularities."