Punishments? We try to avoid thinking in those terms. Inmates are sent to prison as punishment, not to be punished. Bad behavior brings disciplinary action, which should be a logical consequence. Loss of privileges is high on the list. Criminal behavior in prison (assault, arson, theft, illicit drug use) may lead to new criminal charges, or to extension of the time to be served within the limits of the legal sentence.
Methods of control should be escalated only if needful, and aimed at protecting oneself and others from their behavior. Principles of subject control emphasize using the least amount of control necessary to get the job done. Sometimes just the visible presence of authority corrects bad behavior, other times verbal suggestions do it, which can be advanced to instructions/orders (stop and go back to your unit now!) followed by immobilization techniques up to defense techniques/physical force and potentially lethal force if necessary. The more force used, the more paperwork to fill out.
Non-security prison workers such as myself don’t worry about doing more than giving direct instructions/orders at need and contemplating defense techniques, then doing whatever’s necessary to get the hell out of harm’s way as we activate the alarms. I’ve never had to get out of harm’s way in over 10 years of max prison work.
I think our system of loss of privileges for bad behavior (and just about every activity in prison’s a privilege, beyond adequate nourishing food, shelter, clothing and access to medically necessary healthcare) is the best approach. But we need to recognize that for some inmates, loss of certain privileges will not make others safer but will make that inmate worse mentally/physically. Segregation can be a useful to use for some disciplinary situations, and can be necessary when safety is at risk. But all too often it becomes the favorite tool to use for all situations.
Truer words were never spoken. I recall them from my military police correspondence course. Those words really opened my eyes.
Remarkable how often we turn to Qadgop for the official word on stuff.
I have heard tell of people being sent to solitary or even to one of the super-max prisons just because space was available there. A rare happening, but it happening at all is alarming.
If I was going to be sent to prison, I would much rather have my own private cell than interact with scary-looking criminals all the time. As long as I have some books, I’ll be happy.
In TDCJ Adminisitrative Segregation is frequently used more to protect individual prisoners from the rest of the population than as a form of punishment. A very large majority of AdSeg inmates are sex offenders, open homosexuals, guys who rat on their gang, etc. Another portion of the AdSeg inmates are those that are consistantly violent with guards and other inmates, their segregation stems from a desire to protect the prison staff and other inmates.
Each department sets its own policies when it comes to hiring, training, weapons issued, etc. In my city, every officer has been sprayed with OC. During the Academy, spraying is mandatory and tasering is optional. However, if you plan on carrying a taser while on duty, you must have been tasered first.
How about not breaking the law? Seems like a simple request.
“Hey Mark, maybe don’t rape that girl mate”.
For the most part I find nothing wrong with solitary or the death penalty. It’s PRISON…the whole point is to be punished for the crimes you committed. Act like an asshat, enjoy the next 18 months solo pal.
Since prisons tend to be full of violent sociopaths, I’m not clear about why solitary confinement would even be considered punishment, unless it also involved revoking reading privileges.
Unfortunately the “you were convicted so you get whatever is coming to you” viewpoint seems to have been contradicted by the pinko commie-tards who wrote something about cruel and unusual punishment being wrong, or some such bleeding heart nonsense.
In situations where a person is a serious threat to others, or who is under serious threat by others, I can understand separating them. But it seems to me that in some cases, solitary is used as simply a punishment for a notorious crime.
Unless there’s a good reason, I think a policy of locking up people so as to have no human contact at all is just as morally questionable as it was when the North Vietnamese did a similar thing to American POWs. To forbid human interaction to someone for periods of many years is a really, really serious matter, IMHO.
Can society intervene and put an end to rape and murder? No, I don’t think that is realistic. Can society intervene and change government policies? Yes, it is done all the time.
It seems that the “they get whatever abuse they had coming to them” side has a hard time making a compelling argument, and this debate is reduced to drive-bys. Oh well.
What about instances where changes to government policies conflict with the goal of reducing rape and murder?
Consider the case of Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz (actually of Leavenworth). The reason he spent so much of his prison time in solitary was that he was a violent sociopath, who murdered a guard. (And assaulted a hospital orderly who interfered with his attempts to obtain narcotics). I don’t think it is realistic to say “there is nothing we can do to eliminate murder, therefore we will let him out into the general population, even though he has a history of violence that has already led to one death”.
I don’t think what the Viet Cong did, and solitary confinement in a federal or state prison, are very comparable, nor are their motives.