1. IrvingSnodgrass - April 19, 1999 - 8:04 AM PT
My thanks to 109109 for suggesting this thread. And, to get things going, I'm reporting the following from the Suggestions thread:
22322. JJBiener - April 15, 1999 - 1:21 PM PT
Irv - I think a prison thread could be interesting. Some issues that could be debated:
Alternatives to incarceration
Prison conditions vs cost to taxpayers
Punishment vs Rehabilitation
Prison black markets
Prisoner abuse
Prisoner rights
Can prisons reduce recidivism?
And of course. . .
Favorite Prison Movies
What do you think? Is that enough to get a thread going?
2. RosettaStone - April 19, 1999 - 9:11 AM PT
I've always been very afraid of going to jail because I'm scared stiff of being raped by a man.
I don't understand why prison authorities allow that to happen.
3. incognito - April 19, 1999 - 10:11 AM PT
How could they prevent it?
4. RosettaStone - April 19, 1999 - 10:13 AM PT
The jailers have complete control of the prison, don't they?
5. incognito - April 19, 1999 - 10:13 AM PT
That may be debatable!
6. JJBiener - April 19, 1999 - 10:36 AM PT
Rosetta - "The jailers have complete control of the prison, don't they?"
I laughed out loud at this one, then I realized there was half a chance you were serious. You weren't really serious, were you?
7. TheDiva - April 19, 1999 - 10:41 AM PT
Who remembers 'Prisoner - Cell Block H'? Great show.
8. JadeGold - April 19, 1999 - 10:47 AM PT
WRT to security within prisons, you get what you pay for. Or, you get what you don't pay for.
If you continue to warehouse prisoners in substandard and over-crowded facilities, you are bound to get crime within prison walls. Additionally, the people who work inside prisons are notoriously poorly-paid; thus, you are not attracting quality personnel. This problem will get worse as prison management increasingly moves toward private sector contracting. CBS recently ran a news segment on the training of private contractor guards. Essentially, they got 8 hours worth of training and some of the personnel were retirees.
9. CalGal - April 19, 1999 - 10:57 AM PT
"If you continue to warehouse prisoners in substandard and over-crowded facilities, you are bound to get crime within prison walls. "
True enough. And since that's what the majority of Americans think criminals deserve, they aren't crying over it.
In fact, the majority of them would giggle at your little lecture and your assumption that they will all jump up and *demand* to pay more for better jails!
Except in Silicon Valley, where they would try to fix the obvious bugs in your software, because if a deluded pregnant robot is worth money, think what a *sensible* one could bring in.
10. JadeGold - April 19, 1999 - 11:06 AM PT
Well, Caligala, people have to think beyond their petty little belief systems.
We, as a society, have to make some decisions. We can make prisons into hellholes (some are there)---but should we then be surprised when convicts come out worse than when they went in? It seems the society's short-term desire for punishment will eventually be outweighed by the effect of a more violent and crime-prone populace re-enters society.
11. CalGal - April 19, 1999 - 11:16 AM PT
"We can make prisons into hellholes (some are there)---but should we then be surprised when convicts come out worse than when they went in?"
Of course not. And most people are not surprised. But nor do they care. I would say the general attitude is, "well, they should be in there for *longer* then. Besides, they did something wrong to get there in the first place."
" It seems the society's short-term desire for punishment will eventually be outweighed by the effect of a more violent and crime-prone populace re-enters.."
Yes, that has been the line for years, ever since society stopped trying to fix prisons. Opinion polls show how convincing this has been. That view had as much chance as it was going to get 20 years ago. Dunno when the pendulum swing will come back your way.
I, too, would be happy if society were to come to these realizations. But the light hasn't dawned yet.
In fact, I doubt it will ever change unless society becomes interested enough in its children to give them more opportunities regardless of their income. This would probably cause the prison population to drop and we'd be more likely to spend money on those prisoners left. I wouldn't count on it, though. I certainly wouldn't count on society paying attention to prisons in their own right.
Again, maybe the pendulum will swing back again. If it does, I hope the results are more effective than the last go-round of pieties and plattitudes that we were inundated with in the 70s.
12. Jenerator - April 19, 1999 - 11:31 AM PT
Should maximum security prisons have air-conditioning?
Internet access?
Cable?
Mandatory uniforms?
Facial hair rules?
Job access (chain-gang type)?
13. JadeGold - April 19, 1999 - 11:31 AM PT
Who cares about opinion polls? Particularly those having to do with our penal policies?
Sure, I have no doubts that most people are in favor of "locking 'em up and throwing away the key."
However, we have a big decision to make: is the primary purpose of prison to rehabilitate or not? To be sure, some prisoners will never be rehabilitated. Some prisoners should never see freedom again. I'd argue that if we adopt a policy of prisons as solely punishment, we are going to create more crime and more recidivism.
14. Jenerator - April 19, 1999 - 11:35 AM PT
re Message #13
I'd like to think that if more people viewed and understood prison to be more synonymous with PUNISHMENT, it would serve as a deterrent. I'm for stiff penalties (especially regarding DUI's).
15. JadeGold - April 19, 1999 - 11:39 AM PT
Jen;
Sorry, but prison doesn't serve as a deterrent. Heck, the death penalty doesn't deter murderers. Texas engages in the most state-sanctioned murder, but also has the highest murder rate in the country.
Go to any prison in the country. Go to the neatest Club Fed facility--a minimum security facility without walls. Ask any inmate if they like being there.
16. incognito - April 19, 1999 - 11:40 AM PT
I am convinced that for many criminals prison is the best place for them to be.
I don't mean we think that I think they think that.
17. Jenerator - April 19, 1999 - 11:42 AM PT
Jade,
Maybe if we changed some things, prison time *would* serve as a deterrent. As for Texas ranked highest in murder rate (I thought New York had us beat), it makes "sense" to have a more active capital punishment system.
18. Fraaank9 - April 19, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT
If I remember correctly, the United States has now taken the lead in the number of prisoners it houses per capita, not just among any other western industrialized countries, but over such countries such as the former Soviet Union, South Africa, Cuba, and I believe it just surpassed China. Some growth industry to be proud of, huh ?
It isn't just the substandard, "warehousing" conditions Jade spoke about, but the fact that the vast majority of prisons here are custodial in nature, with rehabilitation a far distant consideration, if that high on the list.
I have known many that have done time.I would venture to guess that half of those I attented elementary school have done time in one facility or another, with most coming back into the 'hood even more hardened and immersed in crime than they were before they entered.
If our current prison system has taught us anything, it's that it doesn't work as it is currently set up ( Sidenote: I'll never forget once being part of a field trip to a nearby state prison while in college and being recognized and traced by gang members while touring the facility with other students ).
Allocate more money to rehabilitate those on the "bubble" before they become part of this culture of warehousing and doing harder crimes once they are released.
By allocating more money into that area, not only would there be a need for another industry within this growing prison industry (yech!) by hiring more teachers and instructors to teach some of these on the "bubble" a trade, but my guess is that it would have a positive impact on the recidivism rate.
19. incognito - April 19, 1999 - 11:46 AM PT
I think the laziest solution is to just cry "stiffer penalties, stiffer penalties" and think nothing beyond that. Plus it is politically more appealing usually.
20. JadeGold - April 19, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
Jen;
You proved my point WRT deterrence. If what you said is true, then we should see a decline in the murder rate. Isn't happening.
As to your changes, what should we do? Throw prisoners in a pit and make them fight for scraps? There is punishment and then there is torture.
What do you about the shmo who goes to jail for pot possession--he's not a killer, he's not a thief--he's just some poor shmo whose idea of a good time is to get high. Should we throw him in the pit?
21. CalGal - April 19, 1999 - 11:52 AM PT
"Who cares about opinion polls? Particularly those having to do with our penal policies?"
Good lord. Certainly not me. But they become relevant when discussing how to allocate money for prisons and getting more money for prison reform.
"However, we have a big decision to make: is the primary purpose of prison to rehabilitate or not? "
No, we don't have that decision to make just once. We've made it several times throughout our history and, as I said, the pendulum will swing back again. But right now, the decision is that the primary purpose of prison is to punish. The majority of the population seems to think so, if voting tendencies are any indication. Which, as I said, does not make it right. It merely makes prison reform incredibly difficult to accomplish.
22. Jenerator - April 19, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT
Jade,
I don't have all the answers, we're just "talking" here, aren't we?
Btw, isn't it Germany which has extremely stiff penalties for DUI? If I recall correctly, the fear of losing one's driving permit and facing fines has been successful in deterring drunken drivers.
Hi Frank!
23. JadeGold - April 19, 1999 - 12:04 PM PT
Jen;
I'm just trying to get a handle on your position. If you believe punisshment is a deterrence, to what level are you willing to let that punishment go to? Is there any standard of humane treatment you would afford to prisoners?
If we are going to imprison people and eventually release them--doesn't it make more sense to not have them come out as more violent and more crime-prone?
24. JJBiener - April 19, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT
Jen -
Should maximum security prisons have air-conditioning? In visitor areas only.
Internet access? No
Cable? No
Mandatory uniforms? Yes
Facial hair rules? Yes
Job access (chain-gang type)? Yes
25. Jenerator - April 19, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT
Jade,
I believe that capital punishment deters the criminal being executed. They are no longer free to murder again. As for humane treatment, of course I think that prisoners deserve some fair standard. I also think that it would be a wise investment to have a more rigorous and available treatment program for inmates -- educational training for the GED, emotional counseling, literacy programs and so on. I also think that certain crimes deserve harsh penalties.
26. Jenerator - April 19, 1999 - 12:28 PM PT
JJ,
It just so happens that I have the same answers you do in your Message #24
27. JJBiener - April 19, 1999 - 12:30 PM PT
Jade - "If we are going to imprison people and eventually release them--doesn't it make more sense to not have them come out as more violent and more crime-prone?"
The question is easy. Finding an acceptable solution is the problem.
28. incognito - April 19, 1999 - 12:31 PM PT
"I believe that capital punishment deters the criminal being
executed. They are no longer free to murder again.'
You don't need to kill them to do this!
Jenerator do you believe that knowing you can get CP deters a criminal BEFORE that criminal commits a capital offense?
29. JadeGold - April 19, 1999 - 12:32 PM PT
Jen;
We've argued CP. It is state-sanctioned murder.
Deterrence does no good after the fact. The purpose of deterrence is to prevent the crime, not prevent the criminal from possibly committing another crime.
If you treat inmates like animals, they will respond as such.
30. JJBiener - April 19, 1999 - 1:11 PM PT
Jade - "Well, Caligala, people have to think beyond their petty little belief systems."
This is like Pat Buchanan calling for people to be more open minded or Bill Clinton demanding that public officials be held to a higher standard of honesty and morality.
"If you treat inmates like animals, they will respond as such."
When all else fails, pepper them platittudes.
31. Jenerator - April 19, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
Incognito,
Fine, if you don't like capital punishment, I say institute truth in sentencing! I have no problems with capital murderers getting a life sentence SO LONG as they actually serve a life sentence.
32. JadeGold - April 19, 1999 - 1:23 PM PT
Jen;
Read up on the law a little before posting. You are arguing from ignorance.
33. JJBiener - April 19, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
Jenerator - I like the truth in sentencing idea. In a case I was peripherally involved in, the defendent was sentenced to Life Plus 10. This translates into 40 years, because in Missouri 30 years in considered Life. The way I would figure it is life expectancy is around 78, add 10, the guy gets out in 88 years.
(I know the joke, 30 years in Missouri just seems like a lifetime. . .)
34. JJBiener - April 19, 1999 - 1:35 PM PT
Jen - When jade says, "You are arguing from ignorance," you should take her word for it. Jade is the undisputed master when it come to arguing from ignorance.
35. BobaFett - April 19, 1999 - 1:37 PM PT
Errrr....
"General Deterrence" means discouraging other criminals from committing crimes.
"Specific Deterrence" meanse discouraging this particular criminal from committing crime again.
A criminal who is put to death is specifically deterred. He is also incapacitated from committing further crime.
Retribution, deterrence, incapacitation-- yup yup, the death penalty's got it all.
36. JJBiener - April 19, 1999 - 1:39 PM PT
Boba - CP is kind of like the gift that keeps on giving, eh?
37. Jenerator - April 19, 1999 - 1:41 PM PT
Jade,
Speaking of ignorance, did you know that truth in sentencing doesn't exist uniformly? Did you know that depending on when a capital murder was committed, the crimimal (if he receives a life sentence) can get out in as few as 15 years? You may want to read up on your "Dummies guide to Law in Texas".
38. Jenerator - April 19, 1999 - 1:52 PM PT
Speaking of law and the death penalty.
39. Jenerator - April 19, 1999 - 2:42 PM PT
An interesting quote from this link:
"Another significant oversight by that study was not differentiating between the risk of executing innocent persons before and
after Furman v Georgia (1972). There is, in fact, no proof that an innocent has been executed since 1900. And the probability
of such a tragedy occurring has been lowered significantly more since Furman. In the context that hundreds of thousands of
innocents have been murdered or seriously injured, since 1900, by criminals improperly released by the U.S. criminal
justice system (or not incarcerated at all!), the relevant question is: Is the risk of executing the innocent, however slight,
worth the justifications for the death penalty - those being retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, required punishment,
deterrence, escalating punishments, religious mandates, cost savings, the moral imperative, just punishment and the saving of
innocent lives? "
40. jADEgOLD - April 19, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
Justice For All, Jen?
Tsk, tsk.
41. ChristinO - April 19, 1999 - 4:23 PM PT
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Quit being a bunch of pussies and get serious about this stuff. Mandatory execution for any felony offense. Mandatory execution after 5 misdemeanor offenses.
No parole. Limit one appeal.
People will shape up or they die. End of story.
It's fair and it's efficient and it's cheaper than what we've got going now.
42. ProfEmeritus - April 19, 1999 - 5:19 PM PT
Fraaank in post 18 identified the basic problem: we put too many offenders in prisons. We need more thought on how to reduce prison population. We should start with devising non-prison penalties and punishment for all white-collar and victimless crimes. We should also distinguish better between those who need punishment and those requiring treatment. Prisons should be mainly reserved for those who are likely to repeat capital and similarly serious crimes (e.g.,rape).
43. marshame - April 19, 1999 - 6:23 PM PT
We have come up with a good community service activity for our local offenders: we have them do yard work and home maintenance for the elderly and disabled who cannot do the work themselves. It gives them an opportunity to truly serve their community. (Of course this is for those convicted of misdemeanors.)
44. Jenerator - April 19, 1999 - 6:32 PM PT
Good! I wouldn't want a maximum security prisoner mowing my yard or picking weeds in my garden.
45. marshame - April 19, 1999 - 6:38 PM PT
Oh but wouldn't it be a nice deterrent for some white collar crime? Embezzle and you're sentanced to 1,000 lawn mowings, 750 weed eatings, and 2000 shrub beds for weed pulling and brush trimming.
46. Jenerator - April 19, 1999 - 6:41 PM PT
Too bad they can't come IN and do tasks. How the crime rate would drop (for embezzlement, etc.) if they knew that if ever caught, they'd be sentenced to five hundred loads of dirty laundry and months of bathtub scrubbing.
47. ProfEmeritus - April 19, 1999 - 7:17 PM PT
I think we need imaginative punishments. For financial crimes,e.g,financial penalties: heavy fines, loss of one's assets, garnisheed incomes etc. etc. This would be over and above restitution. The burden would fall on the individual offender rather than on society. For other types of crimes we proceed similarly.
48. JJBiener - April 19, 1999 - 7:29 PM PT
ProfE - You know the easiest way to solve prison overcrowding, don't you? Legalize drugs, and grant general amnesty for all incarcerated for possession.
But that is a thread all by itself.
49. ProfEmeritus - April 19, 1999 - 7:33 PM PT
JJ
That is an example of victimless crimes; there are many others.
50. joezan - April 19, 1999 - 7:44 PM PT
WRT claims I have seen here, and elsewhere, that prisons are hell-holes which, because of their deplorable conditions, are antithetical to rehabilitation, or at least do not make it easy.
Certainly, there are many "hell-holes", where prisoners live a true dog-eat-dog existence. There are also many prisons which, even on the inside, one would have a hard time distinguishing from a state university - prisoners who literally have the run of the place during all waking hours, with uninhibited access to libraries which a lot of universities would, in fact, be envious of. With cable TV and AC. And free, unfettered access to university extension courses, up to and including masters programs. I have seen the insides of both in my work.
And you know what the difference is in recidivism rates between long term prisoners of both these kinds of prisons?
Zip.
Chew on THAT.
51. JJBiener - April 19, 1999 - 9:13 PM PT
ProfE - "That is an example of victimless crimes; there are many others."
Yes, it is a victimless crime that is either directly or indirectly responsible for a majority of the crime in the US and similarly the majority of the inmate population.
52. CalGal - April 19, 1999 - 9:20 PM PT
Actually, I like a lot of ProfEmeritus' suggestions. What I was dwelling on the way home was this one:
"Prisons should be mainly reserved for those who are likely to repeat capital and similarly serious crimes (e.g.,rape)."
I think sex offenders could realistically be on the "one strike and you're out" program. Nothing personal, and so sorry, but you aren't safe, pal, so off you go forever.
On the other hand, the kid who accidentally kills a gas station attendant while holding up a gas station might have some promise. Hard time--punishment required for such a crime--but focus on education, rehabilitation, etc. In many cases give these kids more attention than they've had their whole lives.
Instead the first often get a walk or a few years and the second might get the death penalty.
53. CalGal - April 19, 1999 - 9:22 PM PT
And Joe--I thought I read that somewhere, too. That is interesting. It seems that motivation to rehabilitate is largely internal, if true.
But I think many prisoners need more attention than they get in order to truly rehabilitate.
Again, I don't have much hope that we'll ever fund it--and there is justifiable resentment in funding efforts that can't prove success.
54. AzureNW - April 19, 1999 - 9:34 PM PT
Anyone who points a gun at another person should understand that they have the intent to kill, and should understand why. Anyone who doesn't have that much coordination with their society should be excluded from participation. No first time offender sanctions for armed criminals, none at all.
55. AzureNW - April 19, 1999 - 9:35 PM PT
Do you carry a gun, CalGal?
56. CalGal - April 19, 1999 - 9:38 PM PT
Azure,
?????
No. I don't even like to look at them, actually.
Incidentally, that is an interesting point about pointing a gun at someone with intent to kill.
57. AzureNW - April 19, 1999 - 9:40 PM PT
All the women in my household own guns. My mother in law, my daugher in law, my sister in law, me.
58. AzureNW - April 19, 1999 - 9:41 PM PT
And my sister. She's got a gun, too. My father's 44.
59. AzureNW - April 19, 1999 - 9:57 PM PT
So all that crime drama analysis you suck and spew is completely faked?
60. CalGal - April 19, 1999 - 10:26 PM PT
First pass at Decent to Great Prison/Criminal Movies (whatever the reason):
The Longest Yard
The Shawshank Redemption
Birdman of Alcatraz
The Shawshank Redemption
Thief
I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang
Breaking In
61. AuNaturel - April 19, 1999 - 10:33 PM PT
"In many cases give these kids more attention than they've had their whole lives."
You kidding? We aren't even willing to fund decent education for law abiding folk, let alone criminals. 'Course I read somewhere that a year in the big house costs more than a year at Harvard. Think the two student bodies would trade places for a while?
62. AuNaturel - April 19, 1999 - 10:36 PM PT
CalGal:
Wasn't there a movie with Sydney Poitier and some white guy chained together in a break out?
BTW, you missed Cool Hand Luke.
63. CalGal - April 19, 1999 - 10:43 PM PT
Defiant Ones was more a bombshell than a great movie.
Forgetting Cool Hand Luke is an offense of sufficient nature to *send* me to the Big House.
64. CalGal - April 19, 1999 - 10:45 PM PT
Incidentally, I'm not disagreeing that I should have had Defiant Ones on the list. Just a random comment. I was appalled at the Luke oversight and not thinking straight.
65. cllrdr - April 20, 1999 - 7:42 AM PT
Just read through the posts.
Rosetta's fear of prison rape is hilarious. It underscores a problem the thread hasn't addressed: who goes to prison and why. As I'm sure you all recall, Mother Theresa-groupie and massive-scale bunko artist Charles Keating "admitted" to his crimes two weeks ago, thus putting them on the "official' recrod. According to the "Justice System" this was a red-letter day for the law. For stealing millions and causing untold suffering for the elderly, Keating spent five years in prison.
Now how much do I get for robbing a liquor store?
Suggested reading: "Miracle of the Rose" by Jean Genet.
66. benear - April 20, 1999 - 7:58 AM PT
Or any Genet book for that matter. I most recently read "The Thief's Journal".
67. cllrdr - April 20, 1999 - 8:16 AM PT
Also his play "Death Watch" and his film "Un Chant D'Amour."
Films of note: "Caged," "Brute Force," "Sullivan's Travels" and "Poison."
"Life" is "Number one at the Box office" -- whatever that means.
68. incognito - April 20, 1999 - 8:43 AM PT
CalGal that was my first reaction to your list too: she forgot Cool Hand Luke.
OK here's a strange submission: Stir Crazy, the comedy with Pryor and Wilder.
69. ProfEmeritus - April 20, 1999 - 8:44 AM PT
The best book I ever read about prison life is "My Six Convicts." It came out about 50 years ago, and I think it was later made into a movie. Anyone else remember it, or am I the oldest person around here?
70. DocBrown - April 20, 1999 - 8:46 AM PT
There is no good solution to our "justice" system without major philosophical changes. The justice system is our society's quality control system. It is our way of dealing with defective products.
Unfortunately the basis for this silly system is steeped in ancient beliefs that have exhausted their usefulness. This limits the performance of any modified version of the system we might design. Concepts like Free Will, which lead us to the absurd conclusion that individuals are responsible for their actions, need to be discarded.
Our prisons are an attempt to inspect quality into the people we produce. We wait for people to commit crimes, *then* we try to modify their behavior. We have known for decades that this is an ineffective and wasteful means of improving the quality of any product.
If we want to improve our society and reduce the problems of our prisons at the same time, we must prevent the criminal behavior from happening in the first place.
You might be thinking that I am suggesting the type of solution they tried in "A Clockwork Orange." I am not. The "Clockwork" solution was only used on people after they had committed a crime. We need to use it on everyone *before* they commit a crime.
That would solve everything. And it would guarantee perfect justice at the same time.
71. benear - April 20, 1999 - 8:47 AM PT
It means there are a huge number of idiots that will pay at least $7 to see a movie with BOTH Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence in it.
Eddie by himself is wonderful in small doses (The Nutty Professor).
Lawrence sneers at women with his cross dressing routines. Bring back Flip Wilson!!!
BTW, I have not seen Un Chant D'Amour. Where can I get it, preferably for rent?
72. cllrdr - April 20, 1999 - 9:30 AM PT
I'm not sure if it's rentable, b. It plays at film fests all the time, however.
Doc -- If we're going to go "Clockwork Orange," who gets to pry whose eyes open?
73. elliot803 - April 20, 1999 - 9:40 AM PT
joezan:
"And you know what the difference is in recidivism rates between long term prisoners of both these kinds of prisons? Zip."
Can you substantiate this implausible claim?
74. 109109 - April 20, 1999 - 9:46 AM PT
cllrdr
For robbing a liquor store, first offense, I'm guessing an urban prosecutor would plea you out at 6 months or less. Given your otherwise stellar background and your contributions to this community, I think I could maybe even get you home detention.
75. cllrdr - April 20, 1999 - 9:54 AM PT
You're so good to me, Niner. You forget what neighborhood I live in -- North South Central.
And what "contributions to the community" have I made?
Outside of cruising.
76. 109109 - April 20, 1999 - 9:58 AM PT
cllrdr
Trust me. You may have to wear a bracelet on your ankle for awhile, but that ain't all bad.
Accesorize.
77. doogie - April 20, 1999 - 9:59 AM PT
PS. Cellar Dweller has dark skin.
Why aren't sentencing guidelines for all non-violent property crimes based on the value of the property?
78. JJBiener - April 20, 1999 - 10:00 AM PT
Doc - Still a one trick pony, eh?
79. ChristinO - April 20, 1999 - 12:37 PM PT
Doc,
What you fail to acknowledge is that under our current system the overwhelming majority of our population is not and never will be in prison. The overwhelming majority of our population will never even be at risk of going to jail.
If the vast majority of people are law-abiding under the current system then I hardly think that calls for scrapping the system and adopting some wild plan that you have still not ever laid out without ending up sounding like the love child of the Gene Police and BF Skinner on bad acid.
While you do not believe in the existence of Free Will most people do. So you'll have a difficult if not impossible and likely bloody time of convicing people that they should do as you say since they have no will of their own anyway.
80. AuNaturel - April 20, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
"Why aren't sentencing guidelines for all non-violent property
crimes based on the value of the property? "
To a degree they are. Grand theft vrs. petty theft for example. But it's really the value of the person doing the stealing that inversely affects the sentence length.
81. 109109 - April 20, 1999 - 1:12 PM PT
The call for tough sentences on white collar crime is all well and good. Sure. No problem. The sentences whould be equivalent to those meted out for other economic crimes, namely, drug distribution (though mandatory sentencing guidelines are just flat-out stupid).
Regardless, Keating and street dealers should be free to basket-weave, watch some TV, and use the library while they do their time. And to make their stays more comfortable, every violent offender should be segregated in separate prison facilities where they can be cordoned off from a prison population that stands a chance of rehabilitation.
And if Keating or some doper gets violent in the nice house, ship them off to the violent pen with the hard cases, where they can test their mettle.
82. joezan - April 20, 1999 - 5:19 PM PT
elliot - Message #73:
The last time I ran across these statistics was in The Journal of the National Juvenile Detention Assn. - I believe from the 1st or 2nd quarter of 1998 (although this is hardly new info). But I will grant you one small concession - there are statistics (not included in this article) which show that prisons which offer many creature comforts, voc/ed opportunities, treatment programs, college extension classes, etc, the recidivism rates of *total populations are measurably lower than those of "traditional" prisons. However, first time offenders and non-violent offenders are much more likely to be sentenced to the "non-traditional" prisons, for obvious reasons. Remove them from the mix, and the stats go right back to zip.
BTW, the article I mentioned focused on the tendency of lawmakers at the state level to legislate juvenile matters based on adult offender statistics - and attempted to make the point that, while it is true that conditions in adult facilities don't make a whole lot of difference in recidivism rates, the same is not true of juvy facilities.
83. cllrdr - April 20, 1999 - 7:50 PM PT
When Keating gets shipped off with the hard cases, let me know Niner. I wanna see the video!
84. wonkers2 - April 21, 1999 - 6:58 AM PT
WHITMAN CONCEDES TROOPERS SINGLED OUT BY RACE
The report found that 87,489 motorists were stopped along the turnpike by troopers from the Moorestown and Cranbury barracks furing the 20 months ending in Feb. Of those, 59.4 % were white, 27 percent black, and the rest Hispanic, Asian and "other."
But when it came to vehicle searches, the evidence of discrimination was strong. Of 1,193 vehicle searches during a slightly longer period: 77.2% were of cars driven by blacks or Hispanic persons and 24.1 % by whites.
When it came to charges being filed, the report found that 62% were black and 6% "other." In all, 10.5% of the cars of whites searched produced arrest or seizure of contraband, usually drugs or weapons, and 13.5% of minority driven vehicles produced arrests or seizure of contraband.
Today's report also added another term to the racial profiling lexicon by disclosing the practice of "spotlighting," which consists of troopers parking their patrol cars at right angles to the highway at night and illuminating the interior of each passing vehicle with their headlights. The position of the cars makes radar guns ineffective, and "would seem to support the suspicion that the officers had taken race into account," the report (of the NJ Attorney General)said. [Yesterday's NYT reported that NJ State Police cooked the statistics by reporting the license plates of white owned cars when they stopped blacks to avoid detection of their disproportionate stopping of black drivers.]
...in releasing his report today, Mr. Verniero (NJ Atty Gen.) announced that the state would drop its appeal of a March 1996 State Superior Court ruling that dismissed criminal charges against 17 black defendants in Gloucester County. In that case the judge ruled that the defendants had been stopped because of their race.
Now the state can expect dozens of motions for dismissals, Mr. Verniero acknowledged.
85. wabbit - April 21, 1999 - 7:13 AM PT
"Justice Department data released on March 15, 1999 show that the number of prisoners in America has more than tripled over the last two decades from 500,000 to 1.8 million, with states like California and Texas experiencing eightfold prison population increases during that time...What is most disturbing about the prison population explosion is that the people being sent to prison are not the Ted Bundies, Charlie Mansons, and Timothy McVeighs - or even less sensationalized robbers, rapists, and murders - that the public imagines them to be. Most are defendants who have been found guilty of nonviolent and not particularly serious crimes that do not involve any features that agitate high levels of concern in the minds of the public...The percentage of violent offenders(2) held in the state prison system has actually declined from 57% in 1978(3) to 47% in 1997(4). However, the prison and jail population has tripled over that period, from roughly 500,000 in 1978, to 1.8 million by 1998..."
The above was taken from a report I found here.
A bit off topic: the same site also has an article about the level of violence in schools in America.
86. 109109 - April 21, 1999 - 7:41 AM PT
wabbit
The federalization of drug crime, the mandatory minimum craze, the no-parole option, truth in sentencing . . . all speak to this phenomena.
And the high degree of non-violent prisoners is the premise for my post 81.
cllrdr
Keating only gets maximum security if he scrums with Todd Bridges.
87. Adrianne - April 21, 1999 - 9:05 AM PT
Bobafett, what the hell do you mean I don't link? I link all the time. I link constantly. Here's a link on drug treatment, prisons, and success rates. Link, link, link.
88. ChristinO - April 21, 1999 - 10:13 AM PT
Dah-link!
89. DocBrown - April 22, 1999 - 7:03 AM PT
JJBiener said:
> Doc - Still a one trick pony, eh?
No. But this trick is still a lot of fun.
cllrdr said:
> Doc -- If we're going to go "Clockwork
> Orange," who gets to pry whose eyes open?
I though I said that I don't particularly like the Clockwork scenario. If we went in that direction we need to go a lot farther than just punishing the guilty. Even then it is not a desirable direction for society to take. If it were, we would be there by now.
90. DocBrown - April 22, 1999 - 7:18 AM PT
ChristinO said:
> If the vast majority of people are
> law-abiding under the current system
> then I hardly think that calls for
> scrapping the system . . .
If you propose that the majority are law-abiding then I will only claim it suggests that any given person has the potential to be law-abiding.
Remember, much of my career has been spent in reengineering. When the subject is improving performance of a system I will usually suggest bombing the old system and building a new one. That is not always the best solution, but suggesting it is my role in life.
> . . . and adopting some wild plan that
> you have still not ever laid out without
> ending up sounding like the love child
> of the Gene Police and BF Skinner on bad
> acid.
I appreciate that humorous image. However, I have no wild plan to lay out for you. Sorry to disappoint.
I am only pointing out the flaw in our current system, which is based on these concepts:
1) An individual human is "responsible" (whatever that means) for his/her actions.
2) When an individual commits actions which society deems to be wrong we can restore justice by administering an arbitrary punishment to that individual.
Both of these assumptions break down under close examination. Yet we devote an awful lot of money to a system which is built around them.
91. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 7:55 AM PT
"An individual human is "responsible" (whatever that means) for his/her actions."
It's the "whatever that means" part that's the sticking point.
92. DocBrown - April 22, 1999 - 8:46 AM PT
cllrdr, when you use the words "sticking point" do you mean that this is why the problem is difficult to solve, or why you disagree with me?
93. cllrdr - April 22, 1999 - 9:04 AM PT
Why it's difficult to solve.
*and* concieve of.
94. Slackjaw - April 22, 1999 - 9:36 AM PT
"If you propose that the majority are law-abiding then I will only claim it suggests that any given person has the potential to be law-abiding."
Well, that doesn't follow. The majority of people are not albinos, either.
95. ChristinO - April 22, 1999 - 10:11 AM PT
Doc,
Are you trying to tell me that we're going to end up debating Free Will again because you have an occupational tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Regarding your first claim that there is no such thing as "responsibility":
I take it you've never apologized to anyone since whatever you did to piss them off or hurt their feelings wasn't really your fault, right? I mean, why would you apologize for something that wasn't your responsibilty?
Your second statment mentions "restoring Justice", but I don't think that you're using the word as I've understood it to be used. Justice is specifically the act of restoration or retribution after an unjust act. A Clerk and a customer do not exist in a state of Justice. That comes only after one of them commits an unjust act and is caused to make reparation. Justice isn't a base-line state of existence. Justice is not the same thing as "just".
Okay, I'm going to hold up here. Maybe if we take baby steps.....nah, we'll never agree, but it's still entertaining for some unfathomable reason.
96. harper - April 22, 1999 - 1:40 PM PT
Jen: Message #25
Now, how can you, as a good Christian girl, condone the death penalty yet be anti-abortion? Isn't there a dichotomy here? Sometimes the death penalty results in the execution of innocent poeple. Is that OK with you? Or is killing OK in certain situations?
97. harper - April 22, 1999 - 1:54 PM PT
First, we need to decide if we want to *punish* or *rehabilitate*. Then we take it from there. Frankly, there are people whom you will never be able to rehabilitate. Those you punish and make it nasty. But putting some kid in jail for drugs without drying him out and teaching him to read and/or earn a living is just counterproductive. In too many prisons, the funds originally allocated for rehab & education have been used instead for guards' salaries or more punishment.
The reason I beleive in CP is that it will deter *one* person -- the SOB will never do it again. Plus, (without years of appeals eating up funds) it might be cheaper. Limit the number of appeals & the amount of time a person spends on death row. Right now, it costs more than most people's salaries to keep one person in prison. If he's hard core, it might be worth it. If he's a white collar type or minor drug offense type, put him under house arrest & make him clean up the dog poop in the park every day for X number of years. Or scrub grafitti off the walls. IN other words, do something useful.
98. Jenerator - April 22, 1999 - 7:50 PM PT
harper,
I see a difference bewteen the life of an unborn child, and that of a convicted killer. That's why I'm pro-capital punishment. As I've said before, to me, capital murder is the ultimate crime that deserves the ultimate punishment.
99. Jenerator - April 22, 1999 - 7:52 PM PT
Also Harper,
Message #39 has an interesting quote regarding executing innocent people.
100. wonkers2 - April 22, 1999 - 8:27 PM PT
Many if not most of the anti-abortionists are inconsistently pro capital punishment, even the Roman Catholics who slavishly follow their church's teachings on abortion but don't for some reason on capital punishment. The pro lifers tend also to oppose sex education, birth control and policies to support after they are born the babies they are so concerned about before they are born.