75% ? Well, that only proves that prisons are not harsh and dehumanizing enough. The beatings must continue until morale improves.
Yes, but my mind is still nimble and playful, yours has entered the last stages of fossilization, your thoughts of interest only to specialists in coprolites.
I have been alive longer, but you are much, much older.
Oh, I don’t know. Yours is certainly given to Alzheimerly repetitions of your read-somewhere-and-modified-to-apply to me quips, like the one below:
How many times has the board been treated to this line alone? A dozen at least?
I think you’d be surprised. I’m not quite the dodderer you’d like to think. Besides, the philosophies and opinions I have which cause you to arrive at this opinion existed even in my teens and early twenties. (As did your proclivities toward drug use and anti-social behavior, no doubt :)).
In my teens, I worked for Goldwater, was in the Junior Air Force Cadets, and a solemn acolyte of Saint Ayn of Leningrad. I got better.
Oh, I don’t know, you still seem to have the same proclivity for political extremes. You just bounded to the opposite end of the spectrum.
Get a room!
I am only familiar with the Australian prison system and I know that a much larger proportion of our prisoners are considered to have serious mental illness than the general community. Here it is very dependant on individual police whether you are taken to the police station or hospital if acting under distress. Many people with serious illness float between prison and hospital for their entire lives with only periods of homelessness in between.
I am unaware of any research that indicates poor nutrition, discomfort and pink undies are useful in treating serious mental illness.
There’s one *very *simple solution ensuring that you never need hear it again, and that he never need utter it again.
Nah, despite our differences I think luci’s a net gain to the board. I’d hate to see him leave, myself.
Evidently I underestimated how simple it needed to be.
Indeed.
- I see what you did there :)*.
So did I. But let’s face it, some sort of response was called for. 
Sheesh, its like he wants to flaunt himself in front of people who despise his views and his obstinate refusal to accept change. What kind of weirdo does that?
Does his name rhyme with “shmarving fartist?”
I’d love to see the Westboro Baptist Church invite Sheriff Joe to speak one Sunday. I’m betting he’d accept.
Nah, I’ve noticed shmarving fartist usually just comes into a thread to offer his opinion like everyone else, and then out of a sense of fair play tries to answer the people who for whatever reason feel compelled to challenge him.
Perhaps I only notice that because I’m much the same way. 
SHHH! Don’t mention those freaks! Next, he’ll be defending them too if a (recent) Pit thread existed against the quacks!: eek:
Cite the liberal positions or legislation that led to drugs and fatherless children and the conservative alternatives. Likewise shielding “high crime groups” (is this referring to the Civil Rights Act?) or releasing murderers. I’d especially like to see the conservative alternative to housing projects.
If you’re using psychological terminology, avoidance is actually more to do with personality (someone with an avoidant personality disorder would seek to avoid socialising in order to reduce the chances of being denigrated) than with conditioning. The relevant psychological concept would be the “law of effect”, but that’s given way to more complex models, such as the theory of planned behaviour and other cost/benefit models, which encompass more variables. Salient information for a rational actor would include perceived likelihood of being caught, costs of being caught, benefits of pursuing the particular crime (including the impact of how the criminal is perceived) and the extent to which such a behaviour is under the control of an actor. One of the limitations of such a model is that one of the underlying assumptions breaks down for many criminals - those suffering from schizophrenia are not likely to be rational actors. Even a “normal” criminal is likely to have some self-serving biases (“no way am I ever going to get caught again!”). If these weren’t corrected for, we’d probably expect very low rates of observed recidivism (even if rates were high, we’d see fewer criminals caught). Not to mention, the causative chain for the law of effect tends to break down when there is a gap between action and consequence, whether positive or negative. We see that in cases of corporal punishment and hyperbolic discounting.
In fact, relying merely on punitive measures does nothing to address causes of crime, or recidivism rates would be nil in hideously repressive third world countries (and given some capacity for vicarious learning, crime rates would be, too). Outlawing homelessness doesn’t put people in homes, outlawing stealing doesn’t feed unemployed ex-convicts. Not that it hasn’t all been done before.
Anyway, time for an SA moment of zen:
from here.
from here.