Apart from the basics such as food/drink.toilet/washing facilities/medical care, what, if any, rights are prisoners entitled to?
IMHO…none!
When a person breaks the law and is sent to prison for his/her crime then I feel that they immediately forfeit the creature comforts which they enjoyed on the outside as free persons.
I do not advocate that they should be locked up 24 hours each and every day, 1 hour exercise every 48 hours should be allowed.
Today prisoners are afforded all manner of comforts to make their stay in jail more easily handled. They have access to Computers, TV, Radio, Cinema etc. etc…the list is practically endless.
If would be transgressors knew that their crime would result in endless hours of mind numbing boredom then surely they would think twice before committing any offence against the law.
No visitors at all during the period of confinement other than members of the clergy whatever their religion happens to be.
“Creature Comforts” =/= “Rights.” There are also plenty of people “on the outside” who don’t happen to have the creature comforts you’ve mentioned.
Well, there’s the whole issue of the prisoner being in prison and thus the imprisoning government is responsible for the humane treatment of the prisoner. 1 hour out of every 2 days seems to me to be very unworkable in maintaining the prisoner’s health.
And, yes, the prisoner does have a right to health maintenance. Comes under that humane bit above.
That’s a pretty sweeping statement and I doubt it’s anywhere as true as you’re making it out to be.
How much validity is there, really, in the idea that a criminal is thinking about the legal consequences of his criminal act prior to committing that act?
What about their family? Wouldn’t family visits be helpful also to the members of the prisoner’s family and have a positive effect on the prisoner’s mental health?
Draconian? Yes.
What evidence do you have that such a draconian regimen would be effective?
Being in prison is the punishment. Rehabilitation should be attempted within the system. I would hope the degree the prisoner obtained would assist him or her in their life when leaving prison. Familys and particularly children of prisoners are not guilty of their parents crimes and should be allowed to visit.
I quite agree that family and children are not the guilty ones BUT the guilty one has by his/her actions inflicted on those innocents part of his/her punishment.
This in itself should deter all but the most foolhardy from committing crime., knowing that in so doing they would be denied contact with loved ones for the period of incarceration.
This in itself is a glaring flaw in your logic. In my experience, most criminals give little thought to the consequences of their actions. They generally don’t plan on getting caught. Also from my experience, many criminals are, almost by definition, the most foolhardy citizens in society.
And when they get out, what do you think these people will be like, after years and years of nothing to occupy their minds ? No rehabilitation, no education, nothing but years of low-level sensory deprivation and isolation. They certainly won’t improve, nor will they be any more employable; probably less. I expect you’d turn plain old criminals into outright crazy criminals. Also :
What about atheists/agnostics ? And why clergy, of all people ?
The only way this works is if all sentences are life sentences. There wouldn’t be any point releasing someone after a 15 year sentence of complete isolation. You may as well just keep them locked up because there’s no way they’ll fit back into society if you’ve deliberately kept them away from television, news and family and anything else that might have helped them form or maintain a connection to it.
Read again my earlier post. I said SHOULD not will deter.
DER TRIHS.
Why not clergy? everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
As for agnostics/atheists their choice, their misfortune.
You are missing the whole point entirely, these people are in prison for crimes against society. If they can’t see the error of their ways after years/months of deprivation and attempt with outside help (note I said outside) to rejoin society as law abiding citizens then it’s back to prison again.
I still believe that my ideas would work, maybe not for all but for most.
Punishing people extra for their lack of religious belief is both unfair and no doubt unconstitutional.
You mean like buying some weed for their quadriplegic grandma with cancer ? Or being the wrong skin color ? Or otherwise unfairly/falsely convicted ? Or one of the crazy people we dumped out on the street ? You seem to think that anyone convicted of a crime is some sort of demon, deserving of limitless punishment.
First, they’ll probably be too crazy to function in society. Second, after that kind of treatment, they are hardly going to look at harm to society as an error. Third, I expect they’d fight to the death rather than surrender, which will be rather hard on the cops and any bystanders. Fourth, there won’t be any outside help.
Why do you think driving prisoners mad or filling them with a burning need for revenge would be an improvement ?
And what if it turns out they were innocent ? “Well, sorry little Billy, but your Dad doesn’t do anything more than gibber and smear his feces on the walls. Our bad.”
If I, as an atheist, decide it’s important for me to have a visit from my girlfriend every week, why is that any less important than someone else’s belief that it’s important for him to have a visit every week from a guy wearing a robe and necklace?
“Crimes against society” sounds pretty damn Orwellian to me. Not everyone in prison is a rapist or murderer, you know. I don’t see any justification for giving this treatment to someone who’s been convicted of buying drugs, or gambling online, or swearing while paying a parking ticket.
And in any case, I have to agree with the other posters: criminals typically don’t expect to get caught. If they thought they’d get caught, they wouldn’t commit the crime. No one decides whether to commit a crime based on the availability of cable TV in prison, and no one wants to be in prison even if there is cable TV.
You don’t think prison is mind numbing boredom already? Hell, I have internet, cable TV, satellite radio, and several video game consoles and I still wouldn’t want to be locked in my apartment for years on end.
and Bryan, since we are going that far, why not just take it all the way. Let’s just make all crimes a capitol offense. Why lock them up at all? Life in solitary is much more cruel than death. Too bad we don’t have another Australia to dump the refuse.
However, prisons today, even with the “luxuries” aren’t anyplace I want to be. I know a lot of people who work in the prison system here in Texas (and some that were guests) and the things that happen go way beyond rehabilitation.
Just being locked up in that damned concrete box with no AC right now is punishment enough. No smokes, almost no rec, practically no visitation, no entertainment in cells, one TV per 1000 head, shitty chow, unwanted sexual encounters, occasional beatings from other convicts and/or guards, occasional tear gassings, lock downs, scary ass neighbors, possibility of extended sentence, or worse and on and on… who knows you might even get in a scrape while your inside and wind up w/ a life sentence or death row. They like to put 'em down in Texas.
I lived next door to the Walls unit in Huntsville and on Eastham unit while attending SHSU. My old roomate was/is a CO there. Bad stories to be told.
it’s unbalanced to inflict such grave punishments on people who commit non-violent minor crimes (such as getting into debt, or selling some dope)
it’s a horrible thing to do to people, who are later proved innocent
it’s discrimination against non-religious people
it makes these criminals extremely likely to reoffend upon release
and **of course it’s not a deterrence ** :rolleyes:
I understand that parts of the US have the death penalty. This doesn’t stop murders.
I understand that parts of the US have ‘3 strikes and you’re out’ for felonies. This doesn’t stop felonies.
Firstly. the colour a persons skin does not make them a criminal, I never implied that at all.
Secondly.Do you have any proof whatsoever that people released from prison are going to be “crazy” as you so delicately phrase it. Also can you be absolutely certain that there would be no outside assistance given…I doubt that very much.
Thirdly. Do not be so obtuse as to bring in aged and sick relatives into this debate.It is prisoners who have committed serious crimes I’m talking about. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to see that.
Fifthly. If you cannot stand the heat stay out of the kitchen, In other words, obey the law of the land and you get all the privilages that would otherwise be denied you.
Forthly. There is no proof that neither you nor I can provide that would substantiate your assertion that the treatment I propose would drive a prisoner mad or seek revenge, yours is a hypothetical statement .
Noone respects anyone who treats them like shit.Even though you might think prisoners deserve this (I generally disagree), the first priority og the legal system should be keeping people from deserving it, not punishing those who do. The prisons you’re suggesting is not going to help at all, but you seem to be fine with this, since “If they can’t see the error of their ways after years/months of deprivation and attempt with outside help (note I said outside) to rejoin society as law abiding citizens then it’s back to prison again.”
I suggest YOU are missing the point entirely. A good prison is an empty prison.
I completely agree on all counts except this one. Increasing jail standards with these people in mind is partly accepting their imprisonment. Everything should be done to keep these people out of jail, and a mentality that even comes close to “if we fail, it’s not that bad for them” is dangerous.
I understand that parts of the US have the death penalty. This doesn’t stop murders.
I understand that parts of the US have ‘3 strikes and you’re out’ for felonies. This doesn’t stop felonies.**
3 strike laws do actually show some results in reducing repeat offenders. No it doesn’t stop felonies.
But, you are absolutely correct glee the death penalty is NOT a deterrent.
I don’t honestly think the majority of us do believe it is a deterrent. Perhaps in the case of killing a police officer it is. Murder of a police officer generally is an automatic trip to death row if you’re lucky to get there. I think that actually is a bit of a deterrent.
But in most other cases no. The death penalty is more of a vengeful act, an attempt at retribution for the loss of an innocent life, loved one or family member. It seems unfair to allow the perpetrator to live when they have taken another’s life. It devalues the life of the victim (at in their family and friends perspective) if the killer is allowed to “get away” with murder.
There is no fair or just sentence when dealing with some crimes. Death simply removes the chance that they will repeat these offenses.