This makes me happy.

[The-Joker]

Why would that be? The U.S. is not libertarian, drugs are illegal, there are millions of people in prison, yet there are still crack babies and crack whores. There would still likely be crack babies and crack whores in a libertarian society. Why would the inability to solve a problem that no other system solves mean that an idea is invalid?

Yes, but the idea (irrational) that they would be more prevalent scares the bejebus out of people.

 

[Scat]

I don't think "afraid" is even close to the appropriate word. I have nothing to gain by telling you where I work, so I don't. Also, I'm a young professor that hasn't reached the tenuring phase of my career, so why take the chance that some hillbilly who thinks education is "indoctrination" sending a collection of my posts to my institution? (crazier things have happened, btw).

I teach sociocultural anthropology. My work focuses on the Caribbean. That's as close you'll get.

-nAos.

There's a difference between teaching students to think and how to think. Based on your reaction to my posts you strike me as the latter.

 

[PearlWatson]

First and foremost prison would be the last resort used against people who are dangerous, period. You cannot leave prison if you are still dangerous (sure, it's hard to verify). In my opinion the justification for imprisoning a person can only be to protect the innocent from their harm. The idea that we should cause criminals pain for the sole purpose of making them suffer is not valid, in my opinion.

What's the first resort?
Where in penal system do we cause criminals pain for any motivation?
What other reason is there to imprison someone?

I like your bootcamp idea because it keeps them busy working and disciplined, but it isn't like the military where it is an ongoing thing so what is the good of it once they are done?

 

[Nate505]

I also believe in the right for adults to be adults. What about the rights of those kids Boondock mentioned? Do they have the right not to sleep in needle infested beds? Do they deserve to have their illnesses treated? Does a 4 year old deserve to not have to fend for itself (feed itself, bathe itself, dress itself, etc.) just because Mommy is cracked out?

Then arrest the parents for those crimes, instead of arresting them for possession of a substance. I don't care if a mother is cracked out, drunk, insane, or just an egocentric worthless person. If they are not treating their kids illnesses, feeding their child, etc. CPS should be taking them away.

I never understood the logic of "x leads to these behaviors (even though it doesn't always 100% lead to negative behaviors that I hear so much about) so we must make x illegal" when it's the behaviors it leads to that should be illegal.

For example, society has seemed to survive with alcohol being illegal even though it leads to drunk driving, domestic violence (and violence in general), addiction, and a host of other negatives. Yet we don't arrest someone for buying a bottle of Jack, we do arrest them for drunk driving, beating their wife, etc. Yet when it comes to other drugs, well, we like got to think of the children.

 

[The-Joker]

What's the first resort?
Where in penal system do we cause criminals pain for any motivation?
What other reason is there to imprison someone?

I like your bootcamp idea because it keeps them busy working and disciplined, but it isn't like the military where it is an ongoing thing so what is the good of it once they are done?

LOL... delusion

 

[LogGrad98]

LOL... delusion

I have been reading this conversation very interestedly. As someone who has had some very close dealings with prisoners and the prison system in some regard, I have my own opinions about it, and I find it endlessly interesting how people think punishment should be administered, or if it should, what they think the goal of the prison system should be (rehab? punishment? "time-out") and how to accomplish those goals.

I think sapa raises a good point. One of the biggest concerns of law enforcement, and those within the prison system, and I think it should be a concern to all of us, is the rate of recidivism.

Joker do you have an answer rather than a snyde one-liner?

 

[The-Joker]

I have been reading this conversation very interestedly. As someone who has had some very close dealings with prisoners and the prison system in some regard, I have my own opinions about it, and I find it endlessly interesting how people think punishment should be administered, or if it should, what they think the goal of the prison system should be (rehab? punishment? "time-out") and how to accomplish those goals.

I think sapa raises a good point. One of the biggest concerns of law enforcement, and those within the prison system, and I think it should be a concern to all of us, is the rate of recidivism.

Joker do you have an answer rather than a snyde one-liner?

Nope, I just believe the current system is messed up, and so is anyone anyone who defends it. The "I'm gonna send you away for 10 years of rape and boredom" system is not an effective and efficient form of behavioral reform. We should be focused on bringing balance to broken people's lives rather than sending them away to "rape and boredom" camp, and I'll say that most prisoners are not broken, just victims of a broken system. This gives them at least a smidgen of hope for their future,and benefits both parties.



I called Milsappa delusional because she's convinced hard punishment and causing someone some form of pain is a good solution... where one, at least in my opinion, it violates the 8th amendment, and two, it produces almost no good results whatsoever, when there are lot of other more efficient, cheaper, and effective methods.

Now may I go back to snide one liners .

 

[Boondocksaint27]

Nope, I just believe the current system is messed up, and so is anyone anyone who defends it. The "I'm gonna send you away for 10 years of rape and boredom" system is not an effective and efficient form of behavioral reform. We should be focused on bringing balance to broken people's lives rather than sending them away to "rape and boredom" camp, and I'll say that most prisoners are not broken, just victims of a broken system. This gives them at least a smidgen of hope for their future,and benefits both parties.



I called Milsappa delusional because she's convinced hard punishment and causing someone some form of pain is a good solution... where one, at least in my opinion, it violates the 8th amendment, and two, it produces almost no good results whatsoever, when there are lot of other more efficient, cheaper, and effective methods.

Now may I go back to snide one liners .

Out of curiosity, how do you know that most prisoners aren't "broken"? Do you have any personal experience with any?

 

[The-Joker]

Out of curiosity, how do you know that most prisoners aren't "broken"? Do you have any personal experience with any?

yup...

I also have a general positive outlook on humanity, so I guess I'd be more bias to think there are not broken people, but only broken situations. But I do have experience with people who've dealt with the legal system, people in the legal system, and people who've been and are in jail.

 

[LogGrad98]

Then arrest the parents for those crimes, instead of arresting them for possession of a substance. I don't care if a mother is cracked out, drunk, insane, or just an egocentric worthless person. If they are not treating their kids illnesses, feeding their child, etc. CPS should be taking them away.

I never understood the logic of "x leads to these behaviors (even though it doesn't always 100% lead to negative behaviors that I hear so much about) so we must make x illegal" when it's the behaviors it leads to that should be illegal.

For example, society has seemed to survive with alcohol being illegal even though it leads to drunk driving, domestic violence (and violence in general), addiction, and a host of other negatives. Yet we don't arrest someone for buying a bottle of Jack, we do arrest them for drunk driving, beating their wife, etc. Yet when it comes to other drugs, well, we like got to think of the children.

I would be willing to bet that if you studied the statistics there is a fairly strong correlation between abuse of substances like crack and meth and unstable and dangerous home lives for children. Often there is an "x" that leads to behavior. In fact it has been pretty soundly shown that behaviors do not just happen, they happen as a result of some stimulus and reinforcement. Of course, as you said, it probably doesn't 100% of the time, simply because statistically (and quantumly) speaking a probability of 1.0 for anything is virtually non-existent (hmm, is it a 1.0 probability that there is no such thing as a 1.0 probability?). Now if you can identify the stimulus and the reinforcements for a behavior, and you can change them, then you can change the behavior. Spanking a kid is an attempt at this. So is arresting people for possession of drugs. The problem comes in the analysis of the reinforcers. If they are not immediate (as in very closely connected to the behavior) and certain (extremely likely to occur), then they are weak behavior modification reinforcers. The best ones are usually positive in nature (as perceived by the individual), immediate, and certain. Certain and immediate to the point of being built-in. If you got shocked every single time you touched an exposed wire, how many wires are you going to touch? If you got a happy feeling every time you ate a donut, how many donuts are you likely to eat? Every behavior has both positive and negative reinforcers (or nearly every) for any given individual. Using drugs is apparently an immediate positive - you get high - and the negative (go to jail, lose your job, etc.) are neither immediate, nor certain, and sometimes not even viewed as a negative by the user. This separates poison from drugs. The result of ingesting poison is immediate (usually) negative and certain. Of course, using "poisoning" to commit suicide shows that for some people the outcome is a positive rather than a negative.

I think the decision to make substances like that illegal, initially, was politically motivated. Really, imo, it should be motivated on a cost-benefit analysis (now we are getting into the realm of philosophical ethics). What is the cost to society of allowing all substances to be legal? What is the benefit? Which is greater? Remember, benefits can be avoidance of costs. So is avoiding the cost of the war on drugs better than the cost of the drug use itself?

Is the societal cost of wide-spread marijuana use exactly equal to the cost of meth use? I would wager the answer is no. Some substances are going to have such a strong influence on behaviors, or are so addicting, that the costs begin to get very high, very fast. And the benefits are surely negligible in any case - is there really a societal benefit to drug use other than cost avoidance?

So knowing that there is a high probability of drug use leading to destructive behaviors, and that there is no true benefit to society other than potential cost avoidance, it becomes an equation of whether everything should be illegal, or just the "worst" ones. So far our society has opted for the "worst" option, but then you get the discussion of where to draw that line. It is fairly arbitrary, and again political. This is seen in the fact that alcohol abuse results in more deaths every year than all other drug use combined, yet alcohol remains legal. Again, here is a case where society has determined that the costs of alcohol use (drunk driving deaths? broken marriages perhaps? etc.) are outweighed by the benefits like jobs (bars and alcohol companies) getting drunk and its perceived "fun-factor", etc. So in this case we do punish for the ancillary crime, but not the use of alcohol itself.

Even still it could be argued that meth use as widespread as alcohol use would be far more detrimental to society. Some drugs like meth, crack, heroin have a far greater impact on the individual. It is possible, in fact very common, to be an occasional drinker and not be an alcoholic. It is far less likely to be able to be a "casual" user of meth, or heroin. These have been shown to develop physical dependence in as few as 2 or 3 uses. Also, the possibility of overdose on alcohol to the point of death is relatively remote. For meth and heroin it is a constant possibility as it takes far less of those drugs to kill you than it does alcohol.

So an argument could be made to make certain substances illegal, completely independently of its perceived effect on children (in this case, that is just another cost to factor into the equation).


(the irony of this ramble is that I am a little high on percocet and muscle relaxants because I fell and hurt my back recently, so things come out in a mostly disconnected stream)

 

[Scat]

(the irony of this ramble is that I am a little high on percocet because I fell and hurt my back recently, so things come out in a mostly disconnected stream)

If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands!

 

[Boondocksaint27]

yup...

I also have a general positive outlook on humanity, so I guess I'd be more bias to think there are not broken people, but only broken situations. But I do have experience with people who've dealt with the legal system, people in the legal system, and people who've been and are in jail.

I'd be interested in continuing this discussion, but not for the world to see. I'm guessing in the end it comes down to my core beliefs vs. yours, nature vs. nurture, whathaveyou. In my experience the vast majority of the criminals I deal with, have a truly criminal mindset, and are only penitent after they've been caught and are facing a penalty. It's only then that they want to be rehabilitated, and if only there were a way. We've all had to overcome personal struggles (Granted some more then others), but at the end of the day some of us man(woman)ned up and took responsibility for our lives, and others did not.

 

[LogGrad98]

Nope, I just believe the current system is messed up, and so is anyone anyone who defends it. The "I'm gonna send you away for 10 years of rape and boredom" system is not an effective and efficient form of behavioral reform. We should be focused on bringing balance to broken people's lives rather than sending them away to "rape and boredom" camp, and I'll say that most prisoners are not broken, just victims of a broken system. This gives them at least a smidgen of hope for their future,and benefits both parties.



I called Milsappa delusional because she's convinced hard punishment and causing someone some form of pain is a good solution... where one, at least in my opinion, it violates the 8th amendment, and two, it produces almost no good results whatsoever, when there are lot of other more efficient, cheaper, and effective methods.

Now may I go back to snide one liners .

So what is the alternative? If the prison system is broken (I agree with this by the way) and it is potentially against the constitution to punish anyone (awful tough to define "pain", just ask the ACLU), what can be done to protect people against crime? How do we protect the average citizens while working to "bring balance back to broken people's lives", which is anything but an immediate solution.

Also, in something as immensely complex as society as a whole, I would argue it is impossible to completely eradicate crime, or with certainty keep people from hurting or wronging each other. There will always be some who are determined, or possibly even pre-determined to break the law (think fraud, embezzlement, maybe even chemical imbalances that cannot be controlled, etc.). What is the solution for someone like that, if locking them up doesn't work and any other form of "causing them pain" is against the constitution?

 

[The-Joker]

So what is the alternative? If the prison system is broken (I agree with this by the way) and it is potentially against the constitution to punish anyone (awful tough to define "pain", just ask the ACLU), what can be done to protect people against crime? How do we protect the average citizens while working to "bring balance back to broken people's lives", which is anything but an immediate solution.

Also, in something as immensely complex as society as a whole, I would argue it is impossible to completely eradicate crime, or with certainty keep people from hurting or wronging each other. There will always be some who are determined, or possibly even pre-determined to break the law (think fraud, embezzlement, maybe even chemical imbalances that cannot be controlled, etc.). What is the solution for someone like that, if locking them up doesn't work and any other form of "causing them pain" is against the constitution?

I'm not gonna say that there aren't ****ed up people in this world, they probably need to be in a controlled environment so they aren't a detriment to society. ANd I'm not going to advocate the pardoning of all prisoners ever right at this instant, I think you have a large portion of inmates who are no danger to society and they broke the law because of hedonistic (drugs) urges rather than sadistic urges, those people are just wasting tax dollars (20-35k per on my last account). I think there are grey area inmates who probably need some help, before they can get back to leading a normal lifestyle-- they might need counseling, they might need to be relocated, they might need career training-- something to give them hope and show them the benefits of following the law.

I think your military camp system would work with some inmates, give them a reward (eminent release) for positive performance. But i think that system should be optional, and I think afterwards they should be enlisted into their own branch of military--it wouldn't be fair for non-convicts to have to subject themselves to convicts, some who will be reformed, others who will not be.

The fact of the matter is, pain is gain, only if there is something to be gained.

 

[PearlWatson]

I called Milsappa delusional because she's convinced hard punishment and causing someone some form of pain is a good solution... where one, at least in my opinion, it violates the 8th amendment, and two, it produces almost no good results whatsoever, when there are lot of other more efficient, cheaper, and effective methods.

Is making prisoners work like this mother was doing a "hard punishment" or "causing some form of pain" because otherwise I haven't said anything that would merit your idea that I'm convinced of any such thing.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm not gonna say that there aren't ****ed up people in this world, they probably need to be in a controlled environment so they aren't a detriment to society. ANd I'm not going to advocate the pardoning of all prisoners ever right at this instant, I think you have a large portion of inmates who are no danger to society and they broke the law because of hedonistic (drugs) urges rather than sadistic urges, those people are just wasting tax dollars (20-35k per on my last account). I think there are grey area inmates who probably need some help, before they can get back to leading a normal lifestyle-- they might need counseling, they might need to be relocated, they might need career training-- something to give them hope and show them the benefits of following the law.

I think your military camp system would work with some inmates, give them a reward (eminent release) for positive performance. But i think that system should be optional, and I think afterwards they should be enlisted into their own branch of military--it wouldn't be fair for non-convicts to have to subject themselves to convicts, some who will be reformed, others who will not be.

The fact of the matter is, pain is gain, only if there is something to be gained.

I agree with pretty much all of this. I think changes like these would have a positive net effect on the prison system the way it stands today.

To stir the pot a little bit, I think there is a solid chunk of citizens who don't just want to see someone rehabilitated. I am sure there are those who want to see someone punished. If you rape someone, and they "rehabilitate" you and you leave prison with a new outlook and a nice job prospect or something, might that not sit well as "justice" for the victim? Obviously it would be different person to person (for both the perpetrator and the victims), but I am sure there are those out there who would raise a stink of troutbum-proportions if they did not perceive that any punishment was being meted out.

I also wonder, if we really can and do overhaul the system and make it a perfect model of rehabilitation and reintegration, do you think anyone who has a rougher lot in life might not commit some crime to get the benefits of being in prison?

I guess my question (not necessarily directed at Joker) is if it is necessary to strike a balance between punishment and rehab.

Are there crimes that in and of themselves simply warrant punishment, if not to "change" the individual, then to provide justice in some measure commensurate with the crime? Murder perhaps? Or if someone rapes your 8 year old daughter (God forbid) for example, does that person deserve to be rehabilitated and get his life back better than it was before, while that girl and her family have to live with the horror of the act for the rest of their lives? Counseling for such will really only help the family live with it, it won't take it away. Are there crimes that you can commit that simply require punishment, and that's it?

I finally watched the new version of True Grit (great film by the way...the scene in the little cabin was simply brutal). That girl would not have been happy with anything short of punishment. Is her desire for that completely invalid?

 

[LogGrad98]

Is making prisoners work like this mother was doing a "hard punishment" or "causing some form of pain" because otherwise I haven't said anything that would merit your idea that I'm convinced of any such thing.

I see no reason why this couldn't be part of a rehabilitation program in some way. To answer my own question from my previous post, I think most crimes require some level of punishment, not necessarily just to rehabilitate or dissuade others, but simply as a consequence of the perpetrator's choices and actions. Something like this could function that way.

 

[The-Joker]

Is making prisoners work like this mother was doing a "hard punishment" or "causing some form of pain" because otherwise I haven't said anything that would merit your idea that I'm convinced of any such thing.

Well you kept on saying, "they have to be punished"... and I'd retort with... "well punishment does no good for anyone, there are better options that aren't so old testament" and then you'd say "well where are they being punished in that scenario" and then I'd say "well punishment isn't a good deterrent for preventing bad behavior, just look at the current prison system" and then you'd say "well what are they supposed to do in a prison other than punish"

I said you're delusional, because you cannot separate in your head the ideas of "incarceration" and "punishment"... and I'm just trying to advocate a more forward effective method.

 

[The-Joker]

I see no reason why this couldn't be part of a rehabilitation program in some way. To answer my own question from my previous post, I think most crimes require some level of punishment, not necessarily just to rehabilitate or dissuade others, but simply as a consequence of the perpetrator's choices and actions. Something like this could function that way.

Maybe leave that up to the vanity of the victim... I would like to think if say I got 1000 dollars stolen from me, that if the culprit was caught, that when left to my own devices I would advocate rehabilitating them rather than punishing them, but I'm not entirely certain. I'm sure some victims would demand an eye for an eye, but I see more justice in creating good in a situation that was bad.

 

[LogGrad98]

Maybe leave that up to the vanity of the victim... I would like to think if say I got 1000 dollars stolen from me, that if the culprit was caught, that when left to my own devices I would advocate rehabilitating them rather than punishing them, but I'm not entirely certain. I'm sure some victims would demand an eye for an eye, but I see more justice in creating good in a situation that was bad.

Well that is all fine and dandy from a philosophical standpoint, but what about the gritty reality. Someone breaks into YOUR house, and kills YOUR family member, maybe with a knife or hammer, maybe in a really ugly way, maybe made them suffer first. Are you going to be happy when they don't really get punished, but rather rehabilitated? Then when they find a job in the cubicle or whatever next to yours, are you going to be happy having that office potluck with that individual since he is rehabilitated and all? For me I can honestly say I would hope that guy would never again see the light of day. It is entirely possible I am simply not as enlightened as you, but I would also wager than most American's would support my position in those circumstances.

Is that an important point though? The rights of the victims? Do some offenses simply require punishment and nothing more? I think yes, in some circumstances. I do not think Jeffrey Dahmer deserved to be rehabilitated. I think he needed to spend the rest of his life in prison (which he did). I believe the same applies to Ted Bundy. I think crimes of that magnitude needs a severe punishment. As I said before, not as a deterrant, but simply because he deserves to be punished. I think you can commit crimes severe enough that you forfeit your right to rehabilitation and a normal life.