I think anyone convicted of murder, child molestation or forcible rape should be given three choices: be executed, be sentenced to life in prison or be given the option of emigrating to a third-world country (along with their family, if they so desire.)
PF: I think anyone convicted of murder, child molestation or forcible rape should be given three choices: be executed, be sentenced to life in prison or be given the option of emigrating to a third-world country (along with their family, if they so desire.)
Do the third-world countries get a say in this little scheme? Suppose they don’t want any more of the criminal scum of the developed world dumped on them?
And equating the punishment for rape or child molestation with that for murder is stupid: if you’d be punished just as badly for, say, raping a woman as for raping and then murdering her, you might as well go ahead and kill her. It decreases your chances of being caught because she won’t be able to accuse you.
LN: But people came up with the simple theory that locking up criminals would reduce the crime rate. And it turns out they were right. The reason (or at least one reason) the crime rate has gone down has been the massive increase in incarceration rates. It’s a massive government program that actually acheived its stated goals.
That doesn’t explain why crime rates are now rising again even though incarceration rates remain high.
You are right that higher incarceration rates are one of the reasons that crime rates fell in the late '90s, but they don’t seem to be one of the most important reasons. U. of Missouri criminologist Richard Rosenfeld, in his Feb. 2004 Scientific American article “The Case of the Unsolved Crime Decline”, found that
Well, first of all, this horseshit about drug use being a victimless crime has got to go.
My wife’s mother left Colombia over 35 years ago to avoid the violence of the civil war there. The war is still going on, fueled greatly by the desire of both sides to control the flow of profits from the areas where pot and coke grow. America’s hunger for drugs is NOT a victimless crime.
However, incarceration has proven to be not much of a deterrent OR a rehabilitation for ANY crime nowadays. What we need is to recategorize certain punishments as neither cruel nor unusual.
Habitual violent criminals get their balls cut off. Their hormones are making them crazy anyway.
Non-violent offenses that would otherwise get a short stay in our gang-training prisons instead get a specified amount of time in a public stockade. You stand bent over in shackles all day and passersby get to pretty much treat you how they like.
Worries about drive-bys at the stockades will be allayed by the fact that the stockades will be close to law enforcement centers and the deterrent of losing one’s testicles if caught.
sa: Habitual violent criminals get their balls cut off. Their hormones are making them crazy anyway.
Sure, because violent psychopaths would be harmless little lambs if they got castrated. :rolleyes: I don’t think much of your psychiatric diagnosis there.
Non-violent offenses that would otherwise get a short stay in our gang-training prisons instead get a specified amount of time in a public stockade. You stand bent over in shackles all day and passersby get to pretty much treat you how they like.
Oh good: we get to rely on the sadism and malice of the general public for the effectiveness of our criminal-justice system. That’s sure to make us a much more law-abiding and non-violent society.
Worries about drive-bys at the stockades will be allayed by the fact that the stockades will be close to law enforcement centers and the deterrent of losing one’s testicles if caught.
I thought it was the habitual violent criminals who were to be castrated. Exactly where are you going to draw the line, when it comes to mistreating prisoners in stockades, between the sort of condoned physical abuse that’s supposed to act as a deterrent to crime and the sort of forbidden physical abuse that will get the abuser castrated?
Sorry, but your proposed criminal-justice reforms sound pretty dumb.
Much too broad a generalisation, most of those in jail as a result of drugs connections are not actually directly convicted of drug offences at all, very many are violent offences related to operation of drug markets, others are violent as a result of trying to obtain funds to buy drugs, your statement has serious weaknesses, it takes much too narrow a view and applies this view in way too broad a manner.
Most folk are not really interested in the rehabilitation of prisoners, those not connected in any way with the penal system especially, they just want to see crime reduced and them and their property safe, which is a very reasonable point of view.
We all want to see some simple, one size fits all answer and none of us want to consider difficult and complex policies.
If you lock folk up for increasingly long periods, you will reduce crime, this is proven in the US, but it has a price, and none of us enjoy paying taxes.
Some folk are concerned about human dignity, decency and welfare, believing that every person should have an opportunity to redeem themselves, plus if rehabilitation actually worked, it would have the benefit of being cheaper - on the face of it.
Offending and recidivism reduces as the age profile of people increases, there is a marked drop off starting around age 30, and by 40-45 there are few prisoners around, except for the very serious long term offenders who probably cannot ever be released - so rehabilitation of these individuals is perhaps not the best use of expensive resources unless a specific case can be made in the individual inmates case.
So what to do ? Lock them up until they get past the peak age of offending, it would reduce crime, almost certainly, but it would be expensive, the call belongs to the taxpaying voter.
Locking prisoners up for very long periods would need a differant sentencing policy, clearly someone on low level crime does not deserve to be locked up for decades, but if they keep on repeating it - then what ?
Our laws generally state the maximum prison term available for a particular offence, but when I see a burglar coming to jail for the eighth time for similar crimes and they get the maximum of say four years(of which they will serve just over two), I can’t help but think that there should be some sort of mulitplying factor that can extend the maximum term available for the judge to use.
Although offending does drop away with age, those that remain are likely to keep at it, basically there is a group of prisoners that never learn.
If you keep prisoners out of society for very long periods, they are not around to be role models and peers to others around them, most crime is fuelled by these two factors, take these individuals out of the game altogether and new criminals are less likely to be recruited.
Here is something easily digested ,
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e053/e053b_e.shtml
Prisoners are usually lazy, they want anything for nothing and are not prepared to work for it, when the going gets a little tough, they give up.
They usually have poor education, do not attatch any value to it, they have absolutely no employable assets, and very many reasons why employers would not want them - aside from their criminal convictions, such as personality disorders, utterly uncooperative natures, an inability to accept orders and heirarchy and an unwillingness and inability to accept criticism and learn lessons from it.
This would cover the majority of prisoners, they can only be managed in a heavily controlled environment, lack of personal responsibility about covers it.
Millions of people have to put up with pretty awful circumstances, in employment or lack of it and yet do not go out and commit crime, but prisoners always have unrealistic expectations of what they should have, they want stuff, and feel that they are entitled to it - you can call it greed if you like.
When they are released, they still have the same expectations, but let’s face it, we all have some unrealistic expectations, and for some it results in huge debts.
Crime is closely linked to poverty, but its not just in the absolute sense, more the relative one, the greater your desires, plus the feeling of expectation - the greater the pressure to fulfil.
Changing society is not a short term - or maybe even realistic solution, but it is pretty much the way that is most likely to work.
And the tragic on-going violence perpetuated by the private armies of the Carolina Tobacco Lords shows that legalizing drugs isn’t the answer.
There are a lot of problems with this one.
Firstly, when you are incarcerated by the State, you become sort of a ward of the State, in that the state is responsible for your welfare. That’s why we have to feed, clothe, and give them medical treatments, as well as doing everything possible to ensure the safety of the inmates, including, but not limited to, decent housing and protection from other inmates.
So, how do we ensure their safety? How do we ensure they have access to clean water and plenty of food and that their sewage is properly disposed? How do we prevent the strong from overpowering the weak, and claiming all the food for themselves? How do we get them medical care? Throwing a diabetes patient onto an island like this would be the equivellent of a death sentance.
Secondly, inmates have traditionally been allowed to see vistors. Even SuperMax inmates are allowed family visitations, albeit on a more limited and secure basis. How could we accomplish this?
Third, and finally, what’s to prevent relatives from taking boats out there to facilitate escape?
Well, I was given the choice, please electrocute me rather than sending me out to a certain and painful death on an island in the middle of the sea-- if not at the hands of my fellow castaways, then from starvation, disease, storms, poisonous snakes or suicide.
The last time we tried that, we ended up with Australia. You wouldn’t want future generations to deal with the likes of Crockodile Dundee, Foster’s beer, and Australian Rules Football, now would you?
I still say send them to Africa or South America. Give them 2,000 dollars; they could live like kings.
You are right, of course; my comment was flip, but there is an underlying thesis here. In our society, we cope with the need for water, food, protection from the elements and protection of the weak by working together as a nation of laws.
The idea is that those who flaunt these laws and conventions no longer get to benefit from them- instead, this is meant to be a harsh lesson in why we have them, and why they need to be observed. Think of it as the ultimate in “tough love.”
PF: I still say send them to Africa or South America. Give them 2,000 dollars; they could live like kings.
For someone who’s as sensitive about ethnic disparagement as you appear to be in your “Neocon is a Code Word for Jew” thread, you sure seem remarkably thick-skinned about the gross and insulting disparagement to African and South American countries implied in your suggestion that we have a right to use them as a dumping ground for our violent criminals.
Descending to the merely practical: you know, $2000 will buy you a fake ID and a ticket back to the US from pretty much any African or South American country. I doubt that in this modern age of easy global travel you’ll find “transportation” as effective a means of getting rid of criminals as it used to be. (Even in the old days, of course, transported criminals sometimes came home: Great Expectations, anyone?)
I whole-heartedly disagree. MS and scum like her want you to feel this way. They laugh at you. They pull shit and laugh all the way to the bank. They are just thieves in a different form; in fact they are more cowardly because they are sneaky; they just pick your pocket and go on their merry way. I have more respect for a street thug; at least they are straight-up in their desire to rip you off.
I’d love to see MS , Enron execs, etc in a hard-core prison getting passed around as sex toys. That would make them think twice.
And isn’t that the point - to make people so scared of the consequences that they’d never think of committing a felony?
If we sent our criminals to Third World coutnries with $2000 stuffed in their pockets, I suspect the locals would soon begin processing them, first separating them from their money, then their freedom, then possibly their lives … although I’ve read slave market still exists in Africa, so they may keep their lives, albeit under unpleasant circumstances.
I must ask, are you seriously advancing this idea?
I’ve seen stats from the BoP showing that a sizable minority, if not a majority, of our criminals are in jail for non-violent drug offenses. I’ll be glad to dig up a cite if you like. So I think my point stands.
When the DEA busts doctors for prescribing pain meds more than they think they should and calls someone growing a few hundred plants in their basement a ‘drug kingpin’ I have all kindsa doubts about these “drug-related crimes” and criminals.
Somehow, I don’t recall “guaranteed rape and beatings” being written into any sentencing laws. I always find people’s callous approval of this appalling.
So how come
rape in U.S. prisons = funny joke
torture in third-world prisons = horror
?
I disagree. One sees the true nature of a civilization in how it treats its “undesirables.”
Secondly, I don’t believe that human rights are dependant on a person staying within the law, no matter how henious the crime. A criminal, no matter how despicable his acts, is still a human being, and should be treated as such.
I’m not a bleeding heart. My husband works in corrections, and I have heard tales of the most sickening cruelty, and the most unimaginable horrors. Human beings never fail to astonish me with how truly evil we can be to one another. Some of these people would gladly kill my husband if given a chance. But that does not change how I feel about how they should be treated.
You must understand one thing about some inmates: they don’t think of punishment as “tough love”. Many of them sincerely have no concept that their acts were wrong, and so punishment is seen only as The System being mean.
I’ll give you an example. A convicted burglar came into my husband’s office. He’d been put into the “hole” (temporary isolation in a segregated unit) for beating another inmate. His explanation was that the other inmate deserved it because he had stolen the convicted burglar’s stuff.
My husband said to him, “But what about the people you burglarized? Should they get to beat you?”
The inmate gave him a confused look. “No! Why?”
My husband tried to explain. “You think that [other inmate’s name] deserved to get beaten down because he stole from you, right?”
“Yeah.”
“Well, how do you think your victims felt when you stole from them?”
“I dunno.” Clearly, he’d never thought of this.
“Don’t you think they felt like beating you?”
“Well, yeah, but they can’t do that!” He seemed outraged by the idea.
My husband says he spent a long time trying to explain this concept to this inmate, but he doesn’t think the inmate ever truly understood. He’d never been taught empathy, and it was almost completely incomprehensible to him.
He’s not alone in this, and it’s extremely difficult to explain to someone why a certain act is wrong if the very concepts of right-and-wrong have never been ingrained into them.
Similarly, the concept of action-leads-to-punishment is poorly understood. Since they don’t feel they deserve punishment, it just seems like The System is being mean to them, or “screwing” with them.
Sometimes, prison is their first introduction into structured behavioral rules. It takes some a while to adjust, but most catch on after a while. It’s actually a positive learning experience for some of them. While they may never truly grasp why outside society has these rules, they may obey them, simply to avoid the consequences.
But this is a fine line. If the guards and staff are strict but fair, the inmates usually come to respect them. My husband has always been known for his enforcement of the rules, but was very popular with the inmates because they knew he would not “mess” with them, and would listen to their concerns and act upon them when warranted.
However, a staffer who needles the inmates, treats them unfairly or cruelly is deeply despised. They rebel against such treatment, making the whole institution a more dangerous place for all. (Which is why such people are fired.)
Most of these inmates will be released back into society one day. There’s no need to make them extra-bitter at The System by subjecting them to indignities or treating them like animals. If we treat them with human dignity, and use the prison experience as a teaching tool, some of these inmates can be rehabilitated into society. Harsh treatment will only garner hate-filled ex-cons who see no reason to play along with The System which abused them.
Lissa:
Wow.
That was brilliant.
How do you expect me to be sarcastic and dismissive in the face of such reason, empathy, and compassion?
I concede defeat. Great post!
I have said before that the most distinguishing feature I have found among criminals is a lack of empathy. The vast majority just don’t seem to understand that other people are like them. They function as if they are the only individual who matters. When you try to explain to them about how they should respect other people they just don’t comprehend what you’re talking about.