Printable View
what do u think? should criminals have rights, and how much of an extent should these rights go? obviously im talking about serial killers and rapists and murderers and the like. i dont really want to go into much detail on what i think, but lets just say i think the punisher does good work.
Everyone has rights. People who commit crimes give up those rights. The more severe the crime, the more rights they lose.
I don't understand what rights in particular you're talking about. Could you explain?
I personally feel that criminal rights are important to an extent.
You always hear people bitching about "Criminal rights being more important than victims rights!!11one" Victims rights? Please! Explain to me what the "Victims rights" are? The right to seek revenge? The right to see justice administered? The right t see someone imprisoned? Please... come one now. Those rights don't exist. Im going to comment more on this later.
I have complex opinions on this topic, and I could go on about it for hours, but basically I think criminals should be treated like human beings and should be pitied for their shortcomings. I also believe "there but for the grace of god go I..." (even though I don't believe in god)
Perhaps change it to: "there but for the grace of Bruckner, go I"?
Take care all.
Ok.. I just have to know. Who is this Bruckner guy anyway? He certainly is pretty famous!
Bruckner
Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand, which I think is a pretty important topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Ok so it's for jamaica, but it's a good representation of the legal rights that victims have.Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.ijchr.com/victims.htm
Hehe...
I believe criminals do have rights, but not as many as normal citizens. Their lawyers fight for "rights" that they should have, rights that aren't really rights at all. There have been court battles (which the ACLU has been involved in, of course) that have demanded the showing of cable television in prisons, or the availability of certain reading materials (including pornography), or the presence of certain food in the lunchroom...and I'm not talking about what's healthy and what's not, I'm talking about demanding that they have their steak and shrimp lunch. Hell, prison food is better'n school food.
I say every crime gets a set sentence, and they can work it off. Just like military prisons--spend all day making big rocks into little rocks, then back into big rocks.
Our prison systems are a joke.
Yeah, I'm pretty liberal, but not in this case. My idea of what prison should be (but obviously isn't): Basic, healthy but tasteless food, water, maybe some pre-approved reading material if they're good, and the most basic accomidations. Instead, alot of them get ammenities I can only dream of. :mad:Quote:
There have been court battles (which the ACLU has been involved in, of course) that have demanded the showing of cable television in prisons, or the availability of certain reading materials (including pornography), or the presence of certain food in the lunchroom...and I'm not talking about what's healthy and what's not, I'm talking about demanding that they have their steak and shrimp lunch. Hell, prison food is better'n school food.
Oh, and physical labor, the proceeds of which go to the victims or their families.
EDIT: Please don't double post. -Murder
From what I hear, it costs more to put a criminal into prison than it does to release him. I may be wrong.
People who degrade and murder others don't deserve the rights of human beings.
Who gives you the right to make that decision?
No, you're right. And executing someone (due to appeals ect.) costs even more. :rolleyes2Quote:
From what I hear, it costs more to put a criminal into prison than it does to release him. I may be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara
which is completely and utterly insane... for each appeal and such they should have to do something to pay back the community.. forced labor, procedes go to the community, of some sort sounds like a good idea.
And the quality of our prisons is insane as well...I mean goodness grachious I know people who can't afford cable TV, I know people who can just barely afford a roof over thier heads... and criminals DESERVE more? I think not.
As for the book issue.. i believe it is important for books to be there. Pornography is an exception.. I feel you get really little educational value from that. Whereas reading large novels can greatly increase ones intellect and may help to teach some moral values... particualy if the books there are books that are written by people about how it is like to be a victim.
They should have right...TO PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAART-AY!
Unless the law allows them to commit suicide then yes, they should have rights.
I think many of you have the wrong idea of what life in prison is like. I made a thread about this a while ago, discussing the fact that people think jail is a cakewalk... here's my quote from there.
"Whenever I read threads about crime and punishment, I'm struck by the number of people who seem to think prison is a cakewalk. Having known quite a few folks who've gone to prison (I'm not bragging), I hear about all sorts of things, and I wanted to share them and hear other people's views on prison.
Being jailed in general is not fun. It really sucks being stuck in a cell, or even in a big building. There isnt much to do in there, save for reading/writing letters, reading books from the prison library (a crappy selection at that), or watching tv. I want to touch on the last one, because I keep hearing everyone saying that prisoners get cable. Everyone I've talked to who has actually been in prison has said that's false. If there's cable in the prison, it's for the guards. Prisoners get to watch a few crappy programs a day (one person's choices were between Walker, Texas Ranger and Baywatch).
Some folks talk about how prisoners lie around all day, and that's also untrue. The prisoners do the majority of work for the prison. They work in the kitchen and laundry, do janitorial work, and different prisons have different things for them to do. Some even have educational programs in hopes that the criminals can lead better lives when they get out, and hopefully reform themselves in general. I think that's awesome.
The worst part is the violence. The first thing you've gotta do in prison is form alliances with other inmates, lest you be raped/beaten/shanked. These alliances are usually racial, so if you're white, you get stuck with a bunch of Neo-Nazi Skinhead idiots, if you're hispanic you get stuck with the psycho Nazi lowrider guys, etc. Chances are, you'll still get beaten up at least once. The guards usually turn their backs on this stuff, and some guards are corrupt, helping smuggle drugs in and forming alliances with some of the more powerful prisoners.
It's a constant 'you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't' situation. Example; one of the people I know was threatened by an inmate (who happened to be black) if he didnt hand over the rest of his food. If he did give it to him, the white guys he was hanging out with would beat the crap out of him. So really, he just had to choose who he wanted to be beaten by. A friend's brother tried to jip the Aryan nation guys on a drug deal, and they kicked his face in. Literally. He has steal plates where his cheeks and jaw used to be."
Now that's not directly related to the topic at hand, but I hope it clears some things up.
Obviously someone who has gone to prison has lost basic rights. That's a given. They arent free to the 'pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' or whatever that quote is. They've lost rights by going in there. They dont have many rights at all, and what little rights they do have are often abused by guards/other prisoners. There really arent many rights we can argue, save for little amenities like television, reading material, air condition/heating, and good food (yes, the food there does suck).
Do I think they deserve these things? Well, given my personal feelings on being stuck in a cell and having the crap kicked out of me rather often lead me to believe that such things are fine and perfectly acceptable to be given to prisoners, so that's my two cents on this topic.
I agree with the Abominatrix on this, except for this part:That should not be allowed in prison. If there is a fight going on, the gaurds are obligated to break it. If someone is getting raped, I feel it is the gaurds duty to stop them. However, seeing as how this IS prison, the force that the gaurd uses shouldn't be very restricted. Maybe they could have fire hoses in front of every cell, so when a fight breaks out they could just spray the sh*t out of the prisoners 'till they stopped.Quote:
Do I think they deserve these things? Well, given my personal feelings on being stuck in a cell and having the crap kicked out of me rather often lead me to believe that such things are fine and perfectly acceptable to be given to prisoners
What I meant was, since the prisoners are stuck in a cell and usually abused by inmates/guards, I dont see why given them things like air conditioning/heat, books, television, and so on would be such a bad thing. It certainly doesnt make prison life a joke, it's just little things to make it less of a hellhole.
Ok. Sorry, that was a misunderstanding on my part, and I completely agree with you now.
No worries. I word things for myself, and I dont think about how someone else will interpret them.
Criminals aren't part of our society. They break the boundaries and do their own thing.
It's the ultimate in being a loner.
Of course they can't have rights. It's no business of ours to give "rights" to them. And it's no business of theirs to take such alien things from us.
When we connect with each other, which, unfortunately, is the goal of the criminal, there must be war. They harm us and we imprison them. But where the hell do "rights" fit into the picture.
I'm completely lost as to any reason to give a criminal both the benefits of our society and the benefits of his own when he's already my enemy.
I mean, like, here, let's start the fight with my hands tied behind my back, my feet tied to a concrete block, and I'll teeter on the edge of the grand canyon. You can have the bazooka (But you can't have your hands tied behind your back).
i agree. criminals dont deserve human rights, or at least the ones that commit crimes that make them unhuman. (rape, murder, etc.) i also think that a victim should be entitled to seek vengeance and kill the offending criminal. meaning, if your daughter/wife/whatever gets raped and then killed, u should be allowed to go kill his dumb ass.
Two wrongs do not make a right. By that logic, if I murder a murderer, his family can murder me. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Criminals lose rights, under every system of law on the planet. In this country they lose the right to freedom, the right to vote, the right to property, the right to privacy, the right to the pursuit of happiness, in some places even the right to life. There is no question prisoners should lose rights, the only question is to what extent.
Murderers and rapists and their ilk should have little to no rights, in my opinion. I think they should suffer. I'm not in favor of prisoners abusing each other, because some people are going to get hurt that don't deserve it, under such a system. I think the government alone has the right to punish criminals. I am in favor of "no cruel or unusual punishment", but I would consider few things "cruel" when it comes to punishing a murderer or rapist.
I've also known people who've been to jail--hell, my brother-in-law is getting out in May, and my ex-stepfather should be out sometime soon too--and from what I've heard, it IS in fact a cakewalk. I had it harder with the Army in Iraq than they did. (More work, worse conditions, much more dangerous, very little freedom, no TV, bad food...) But I don't complain about the conditions much, because I volunteered, and that's prettymuch "asking for it". Just like they were "asking for it" when they did whatever it was that got their asses tossed in prison.
For some people, prison would be a step up.
Now, all the people I've known that have gone to prison were sent for minor things (i.e. drugs), so their situations may not have been as bad as those sent for serious crimes, like rape or murder. But, in my opinion, people that rape, murder, molest, etc. deserve whatever they get.
I think it varies from prison to prison.Quote:
I've also known people who've been to jail--hell, my brother-in-law is getting out in May, and my ex-stepfather should be out sometime soon too--and from what I've heard, it IS in fact a cakewalk.
Who cares if prison is a cakewalk or not? All that matters is that they are locked away from society.
True...
What the hell is a cakewalk?
"Cakewalk" means something that is extremely easy. In this instance, it's referring to prisons that aren't really "punishment", just "detainment".
No, the point isn't that they're locked away from society, the point is that they don't go back into society and do the same things they did to get tossed in jail in the first place. Rehabilitation, so to speak. If prisons are hard, if prisons are made to be a place where people don't like to be, then crime wouldn't be as high. What is it, 70, 80 percent of crimes are committed by people that are repeat offenders? So if they would have actually been punished the first time, they wouldn't think to do it again.
Prisons need to be a place where people go, get out, and when they're back on the streets they think "Hell no I'm not doing that, I'm not going back to prison, I'll keep my life clean."
Well, I'm not familiar with Yankspeak.Quote:
"Cakewalk" means something that is extremely easy. In this instance, it's referring to prisons that aren't really "punishment", just "detainment".
Sasquatch you and I are on aggreement here.
I was reading up on some of the earlier prisons in my Western Civ Class.. and well they would definately be "cruel and unusual" to most people's view... but wait, the book definately said thatcrime went down after the installation of these prisons, and when the prisons become more "humane" crime went back up.... I wonder if there is a connection? :confused:
Oh well... I guess some people are wrongly jailed and that could possibly be a real pain then.. but hopefully with our technology ever improving such errors will become less and less... although I am certian people will still allude the police on occasion.
The moment you infringe on the laws that give you rights is the moment that the laws no longer protect those rights, and you willingly give them up.
Hearing from one guy that prison is easy... I did a report on this in government class, and interviewed at least fifteen (or something like that) of various degrees of security prisons (maximum, minimum, etc), they all told me similar stories and most told me anyone who says its easy is either crazy or lying. Every one of them said it was difficult, violent, and nothing they'd ever want to do again.
That does not, however, keep people from doing crimes. If they're going to be criminals, no threat of punishment will stop them. If it did, countries with public executions wouldnt have crime at all.
Talk to fifteen high schoolers, and ask them if they think high school is easy. Then in a couple years look back and see if high school really was that difficult.
Of course everything seems harder while you're going through it. That would apply to relationships (or lack thereof), prison, school, training, etc. Looking back on Basic Training, it was harder than hell to go through, but I could definitely do it again. And probably be better going through it. And the people I know that had gone to and been out of prison, they said it was nothing. Even the two people I knew that were in prison when I last heard from 'em, they said it was pretty easy.
Even if it's nothing they'd ever want to do again...it must not be enough of a deterrent if they keep doing stuff that'll get 'em sent back.
And countries with public executions and extremely strict, even abusive, prisons...they don't have much for crime.
I talked to people at various degrees. People who were in jail at the time (yes, not only people I knew in jail, I went down and spoke with the head honchos at the prison about interviewing a prisoner at random), people who had been out a year or thereabouts, people who had been out for many years, people who had been out for 20 years. This isnt high school. This isnt basic training. This is prison. It's different. You can say whatever you want, but I've done the research.
They dont have much for crime but they still have crime.
Obviously, you'll always have crime, because you'll always have people that think the benefits of getting away with it are greater than the chances of getting caught. But in the areas where they have serious prisons, there aren't nearly as many repeat offenders as there are in America. Because American prisons are a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
i agree with you there. American prisons are a subdued compared to other countries, but that dont mean they are a joke. Have you even been to prison. I know harden criminals that dont want to go back to prison. Prisons will never deter crime. i dont care if its the toughest place in the world. hell, jails in america used to be worst, and it did nothing to deter crime. The reasons that there is so many repeat offenders is because of the system we have in place.
When a prisoner gets outta jail, they are start from nothing. Then when they got to look for a job, they have to put down that they've been to jail and you know honestly that no one will hire you or wants to hire an ex convict even if you've changed. And the only jobs they can get are of the mc donalds variety. So that leaves them with no real way to take care of themselves. So what do alot of them do. They return to the same life they lived before. Our system is flawed. its not really rehabiltaing anyone. its not helping the people that get outta jail secure good ways to be productive with their lives. now maybe a minm. security prison might be a little more lax, but there is nothing like a max security penatentry. 23 hour lock up. suclusion, even if you make it outta a place like that alive, you will never be the same. You got to be crazy to think that something liek that is a cake walk. im not even gonna mention some of the things that go on in jails and prisons.
The problem with american prisons is that they don't try to heal the inmates.
They pretty much just oppress them for a set amount of time
and then hope they will be scared enough not to commit further crimes.
Almost all places with 'serious' prisons dont have repeat offenders because the offenders are never released. They're either killed or kept in jail for life for minor violations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
And bravo, AkiraMakie. What you said was very true. It's a sadly vicious cycle.
Exactly. There is no rehabilitation in this country. America has the worlds highest incarceration rate. Does that make us any safer? I don't think so. :mad:Quote:
The problem with american prisons is that they don't try to heal the inmates.
Sorry, I didn't realize it was everybody else's responsibility to make sure convicts got jobs.
The prisons system isn't obligated to find them jobs, or help them when they get out. What they're supposed to do is make prison a place nobody wants to go to, an actual punishment, and then there would be less repeat offenders. This ain't too difficult to figure out, people. Just like ShunNakamura said, stricter, more harsh prisons may be looked down upon, but they work. They're extremely effective, and history proves that. Look at "Tent City"...can't remember what county it's in, but I think it's in AZ?
The problem with criminals isn't that they can't find jobs. It's that they're not afraid of doing what they did to get into prison in the first place. And if they're not afraid of going back to prison--if they're not afraid to the point that they would never want to even get a parking ticket--then the prison system isn't doing it's job.
By the way...not every criminal is only stealing so he can feed his family, you know. In fact, all of them have some alternative, even if that's their excuse.
prison doesn't work, most people who are sent to jail end up back in jail within a year. that's a fact. it fails to prevent crime, to deter crime and to prevent re-offending. prison doesn't work. this isn't because it's not hard enough it's because the system makes no sense. you take some 16 year old junkie who broke into some guys house to feed his drug habit, that isn't something that needs the almighty hand of law to crush the kid it requires him to be re-taught and brought back into the normal community. what happens if you don't? then he goes to jail for a year, doesn't kick his habit because the amount of drugs in prison, learns some new tricks from his cell mates. gets back out poorer and worse off than he was before, so what is this kid gonna do? go out get a job and become a worthwhile member of society? no he's gonna start theiving again isn't he? but give him a real education a new start, pride and help and he could become a good member of society.
all men have the capability to be good it's just a matter of bringing that out not punishing the bad.
and if we were to make human rights void in prison what happens to wronlgy convicted people? that isn't a rare occurance. ask yourself one question if you were convicted of something you didn't do and spent a year in the conditions you talk about would you just shrug it off?
human rights apply to all humans. they aren't called "human rights for people that we find acceptable" or "human rights for people that we suspect did something bad" they are for all people, because you know what would get rid of all the theives, murders and rapists? auschwitz.
before you quote levicticus at me and "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth" there are two quotes that need to remember in this world one is from ghandi "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" and one from jesus "may the one without sin throw the first stone"
and for sasquatch tent city does not have a significatly lower reoffending rate than any other jail and as far as stats in the matter go is average. it is not a success.
Prisons shouldn't give inmates any perks unavailable to poor law abiding citizens. Prisons offer television, education/job training, etc. There are honest poor people that don't have that. As for prisons being an endless cycle due to excons having a difficult time getting hired for decent work - again, there are honest people that are also finding it impossible to find decent work. Should a poor person be able to live a better life by committing a crime? If prisons offer so much that a poor person can't afford, and even further (in some posters' ideal scenarios) gave the excon a better chance at finding a fair paying job, who but the most moral of the poor wouldn't jump at the chance at prison life? Prisons should never make a persons life better. We don't send people to prisons to make their lives better, even in the long run. We send people to college for that. The two shouldn't be confused.
Nice, Garland. Not bad.
Tent City has a great affect in lowering crime rates in its area, I've read about it and seen things about it. It's a real prison--no comfy living conditions, strict rules and schedules, healthy but basic food, required work... It's what prisons were made to me. And it works rather well.
"all men have the capability to be good it's just a matter of bringing that out not punishing the bad."
There are two ways to "bring out the good". One is to train, spoil, coddle, and show love and respect to the person. That's not what prison is for. The other, more effective way, is to find the bad and supress it. Just like a dog--you can train a dog to sit by giving it food and playing with it when it obeys you, or you can train it by smacking it when it doesn't. Either way, it'll learn. And don't try the "well they'll just become more rebellious and violent" line, because if that's the case, they need to be punished more. If you smack a dog on the nose because it disobeys you, and it tries to take your hand off, do you give it a treat, or smack it again?
False convictions are not nearly as common as some people think they are. And nobody's saying that we should beat the hell out of prisoners all the time and take away their human rights. There's a long way to go from real punishment to infringing upon human civil rights. Even so, would YOU have a problem with spending six months in jail if it meant the guy in the next block wouldn't get out and rape and kill another person?
I dont know about you, but i would definately have a problem with spending 6months in jail for a crime i didnt commit. i dont care what the guy on the next block did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Sure, if you follow the american model,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
trying to oppress and break down the prisoners so much they just don't dare to commit crimes again.
But if such system was successful, you'd turn all prisoners into mentally ill humans,
capable of doing nothing and those aren't very profitable to the society.
There are also alternative forms of fighting crime.
You can try to rehabilitate the prisoners and then help them get jobs when they get out.
A person with a job is a lot less likely to commit crimes,
since unemployment is the biggest cause of crime.
AkiraMakie -- Sorry, I would rather give up a little of my time so that somebody else wouldn't have to give up their life. But I guess I'm too cruel and uncompassionate.
jrgen -- Unemployment is the biggest cause of crime? Hell no. Criminals usually don't have jobs, but that's certainly not because their crime is caused by them not having a job. Many times, criminals do things to dupport their drug habit--and when you've got a drug habit, jobs don't last very long.
prison is not a deterrant never has been never will be no matter how bad you make it. there is no fear about it to make people stop being criminals, the death penalty has never stopped murders has it? or has the murder rate in america dropped since the last time i looked?
fear is not a deterrant do you really think that the little junkie who breaks into homes before he does it thinks "better not do this i could end up back in jail" of course he doesn't he does it because it's either habit or the only way he can see. you punish him by putting him in jail, let him out and do you think his mindset has changed? no because he is still in the same situation. change his prospects, his situation and you change his future and he no longer commits crime.
Actually the reason the death penalty doesn't work well in the U.S. is cause of the fact that it isn't a guarentee.. and even if you are sentenced to death it will be years before it is carried out. Too long.. Swift punishment and precise punishment is what would deter crime.
However many murders are spur of the moment things. they just go too far when they are angry, etc. Now those should be locked up.
Also in was stated in the books I have read that after prisons became less harsh in the 1800's crime went up.. I wonder why? Those prisons used to be the equilivant of our solitary confinement.. except you served your entire term there wiht them shoving food under doors or what not.. cruel? yes. detterent? yes. If it isn't a deterent then either someone is really desperate, or really dense, or just plain crazy and doesnt' care for consequents.. and that is type of people you won't easily stop.
the rise in crime in america had more to do with the loss of the american dream, the depression and a huge rise in population.
statistics are hard to pin on these thing like the statistic you quoted before about crime going up when one prison went lighter. most of these things are scewed to fit a view. for instance prison went soft on month 1, crime went up on month 1. that proves nothing as most people who did the crimes would not have been in contact with these new jails and the people in them wouldn't have got out yet.
the death sentence needs to be a long process. can't be going round hanging people one a whim can we? i would be bitterly upset if i was hung after a trial with no appeal or chance to have it over turned.
and do you really think that before people commit murders they think "ah i won't be killed for a few years yet anyway so i'm okay always wanted to see if this baby worked anyway." and if the law gets changed for quicker deaths they'll all think "better not kill this women the law just got changed i'll be killed in a month after my trial now, i'll just put the gun down"
I did state that many murders were spur of the moment, did I not? :confused:
There is nothing you can realy do about those, so I simply ignore that when discusing punishment.. won't matter because it is unmeditated.
Also my statistics are for when prisons FIRST came out in Europe in the oh... 1800's... did I say that in my last post, I thought I did.. ah well maybe not and I am too lazy to check at this time.. want to go out for a bike ride.
Prisons being harsh would mean people wouldn't do crime, not because they think about it in the normal sense, but rather they would just intuitively avoid doing something to land them there... obviousally there would be exceptions. I can tell you right now it woud be so easy for me to steal from our local carry-out.. not to mention Good-Boy dustin wouldn't be suspect. But the thought doesnt' cross my mind unless I purposely point my mind in that direction. On further analysis I have found that I am afraid of being caught... My dad would make my life a living hell.. and my mother.. lets not go there. Not to mention the trouble I would get into wiht the law.. But you see these thoughts, I don't think them, my subconsious handles that and surpresses such thoughts.
So tougher prisons.. not so tough as to be terribly cruel.. but worse then the life, of a person in poverty, would have some effect.
Also I understand we don't want to hang innocent people, that remark was simple truth though. Swift executions have a larger deterence on crime, then ones where you have a fair chance to get off, or at least to prolong your life to a ripe age. Now unless tech gets to the point where wrong convictions are not present or are very, very, very few, we can't do swift executions due to the fact that we MAKE mistakes... or at least more then I would like.
There is no real deterrent for murder. Most murders are momentary lapses of judgment due to anger, hatred, greed, fear, et cetera, where the consequences are ignored. Planned out murders are due to arrogance about avoiding the consequences. Just because prison doesn't deter murder doesn't mean murderers shouldn't be punished, however.
Now, prison is a deterrent for other crimes: theft, for example. Breaking-and-entering. Rape, even. Most other crimes are conceivably deterred by the threat of punishment.
Also, I don't know about most prisons, but maximum security prisons are not a nice place to be.
With the pre-meditatied murders if the punishment was harsh enough... it might deter some of those arrogant people.. due to the fact that no one would wnat to go through.. of course such a punishment would have to be so cruel that I don't think anyone in their right mind could administer it... Hell killing them would be far nicer then some of the stuff that went through my mind as I wrote that. And I think of life as the most precious thing. *shudders*
And I can immagine that they aren't comforatable(prisons that is), but how many petty theives are sent to maximum security? I doubt the number is high. But yeah.. or prisons do need to focus on rehab... while being a place people don't want to go.. if that is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
so now your saying most people in jail have a drug habit? or are you saying being on drugs makes you a criminal? lol i like debating with you cause sometimes you make some of the wildest statements.
Many things lead people to commit crimes. Drug habits are one of them, but not nessasarily the biggest one. There is no way to really tell what reasons people commit crimes. so i refuse to aruge with you on that point. But i will say unemployment and proverty is bigger driving force to crime than drug use. If you ever look at places that have high unemployment and proverty, Crime is always up. But in places with high employment and little to no proverty, crime is always down. the facts speak for themselves. But, you probably cant relate to that because you've probably never lived in an area that was low employment and proverty stricken. so your mind may not be able to put those things together. Theres nothing wrong with that though. I envy you. I wish i had grown up living in a neighborhood where everything was nice and peachy. But i grew up in DC, it wasnt like that for me.
as for the drug users...
There are people in jail for no other reason but because they are on drugs. The havent stolen anything, killed anybody, raped anybody. the only thing they are guilt of is drug use and buying controlled substances. Now do they deserve to be treated like animals, or do they deserve help. In fact, drug addicts that go to jail because of their addiction shouldnt even be in jail. They need help. but thats another story.
Drug addicts definately should get rehab help... serioussally.. that not onlly is unhealthy for htem, but it can leave them in a messed up state of mind, not to mention to pay for they may commit more crimes.
Now if they steal, they should be treated as a normal thief, but of course with drug help.. forced drug help.
If they murdered someone.. well they are just a murderer with a drug problem... same term as a murderer but wiht forced rehab for drugs.
If they sell drugs... and there is proof someone died as a result, then it would be... err what is it manslaughter? where you murder someone wihtout intent or some such. yeah anyways I am certian you get my drift.. if the crimanal has an obvious problem try to stop the so called circle, but also make prison rough... that way there are TWO deterents to crime... that should help more then either one individually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
no i was talking only about the people who are locked up, only because they are on drugs. now a drug addict that commits a crimed needs to be locked up. plain and simple.
Can't say much now, tired, about to get to bed.
I didn't say most people in jail had a drug habit. I said many of them do. My main point was that poverty isn't the cause of crime. Crime is the cause of poverty and unemployment. Not the only cause, of course, but a large one. And yes, I have lived some pretty damn bad places, where poverty and crime are all over the place. I don't know why you would like debating with me, because I have to re-explain most everything I say because you don't understand it at first.
Yes, drug addicts need treatment as well as jail time. And they get both. It's not like they just take some addict off the street and toss him in a cell, if the person needs therapy, medicine, etc. to help him get over his addiction, it's available to him. Nobody wants a prison full of addicts going through withdrawls, obviously.
There is a mandatory appeal for all death sentences, which usually takes more than fifteen years. I agree with that...the appeal, anyway, not the time. Maybe five years. But for a guy to get a dozen appeals and spend forty or fifty years waiting to be executed, that's ridiculous.
(Edit: Whether or not you agree with drugs being illegal, if somebody commits a drug-related crime, whether it be buying, selling, possessing, etc., he has still committed a crime and should be punished accordingly.)
Remember the guy a long while ago in Singapore? Early 90's, I believe? He was caught spray-painting a guy's garage door, I believe, and they caned him. Somebody was actually trained in martial arts to carry out the sentence, and the schmuck stood there while this guy whacked him with a cane. Tore him up. Now, I'm not saying that's humane, and I'm not saying that's the way we should do things...but crime is low in Singapore. Do the math.
We could probably debate that point all day. you think crime cause proverty and unemployment, and i think unemployement and proverty cause crime. We will never agree on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
really? where? :rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Dont insult my intelligence. its not that i dont understand you. its that i dont agree with you. theres a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
So how would you feel if they tossed your mother into jail only because she had a drug problem. would you want her rotting in a cell or would you want her getting help. i dont believe you really be so quick to make all these assumptions if you had to deal with these problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
ok, true enough. But thats the problem with out laws. but ok, your right on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
"so now your saying most people in jail have a drug habit? or are you saying being on drugs makes you a criminal?"
So you DID understand what I was saying, you just...acted like you didn't? (By the way. Drugs are illegal. Being on drugs does make you a criminal.)
I said that drug addicts need treatment as well. But if somebody I was close to was sent to jail for drug use (which has happened, to two different people), then I would expect then to be rehabilitated off the drugs while they were there. Which is what happens.
I don't feel the need to explain my living history to you. But I will say that the place I live now is number ten, in state number four, not including the more than a year I spent in Iraq for the Army. So I haven't lived in a little peachy rich neighborhood all my life, thank you very much.
yeah that was bad sarcasmQuote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
ok your right, thats your belief on how it should be run, and i apologize for making an assumption on your family history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
ok, i dont understand this. Are you saying you live in the tenth worst city of the 4th worst state?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
and once again, i apologize for making an assumption on where you lived and how you grew up.
It happens.
This is the tenth place I've lived, in four different states. Born in IL, spent a year in AL, like to consider myself "raised" in GA, and now live in WI. Moved around a couple times inside the state, too.
please children enough of the back chat here. i hope that's the end of it.
i don't believe a deterant for crime can ever work. i think in the mind of the criminal there are one of two things happening he believes he won't be caught so why care about jail because you aren't gonna go there anyway. or he's not thinking about all he's thinking about is his next fix or for whatever other reason he/she has.
i poverty doesn't cause crime neither does drugs. inequality causes crime of the type i believe we have moved onto. impoverished countries have fairly low crime rates but countries with huge divides between rich and poor have far greater rates. i believe the feelings of helplessness from this can lead to drugs. some people belive crime can be used to jump the inequality gap or see life as not fair.
technically drug usage is not an offence, possession and dealing is but to have it in your system is not.
but aside from that. something that will be slammed down.
someone before mentioned murder was normally a crime of passion. if this is the case it would be very rare to commit it twice and everyone is succeptible to commit it. if there is a extremely small chance of reoffending and could have been claimed to be a natural reaction why jail or even the death sentence for this?
It is a reflection on the failures of American society that we have so many in prisons. If life in prison is better than life out of prison for some, that is an indictment on the pathetic nature of poverty in the US.
You don't stop being human just because you commit a crime.
I'm with you on that. :mad: We have the worlds highest incarceration rate. That's pretty sad.Quote:
It is a reflection on the failures of American society that we have so many in prisons.
Failures of American society? I disagree. Failures of the criminals themselves? There you have it. American society bears no responsibility for people who break the law.If less people committed crimes, there would be less people imprisoned. Blame the prisoners for the high incarceration rate. It's because of their mistakes that the US has that ill distinction. There's no excuse for crime. There are no Jean Valjeans. In fact, even Jean Valjean deserved imprisonment. Crime is crime. I don't think it's a good practice to make so much gray out of black and white issues.
Do you suppose there are reasons why some people commit crimes and others do not? Are they just born evil? Do you think we shouldn't do anything to try to prevent so much crime from happening in the first place?
Actually, having drugs in your system is illegal, depending on the drug. My stepfather was sent to jail because he tested positive for cocaine.
Of course, coke only stays in your system for three days, and he didn't just fail one test, he failed two, and he knew both were coming more than a week in advance of each of 'em...but stupidity wasn't what he was put away for, it was coke.
I agree with Garland. It's not society that makes criminals, it's bad people that make criminals. There are reasons some people commit crimes and others do not, but it's nothing upon society. I can live across the street for somebody all my life and grow up to be a serial killer, or rapist, or even just a petty thief, and he could grow up and lead a clean, successful life. Why are some kids in elementary school nice and quiet, when some are loud and disruptive, or bullies?
crime is not just about where you live, it's about who you live with, who you associate with, your education, your childhood.
i prefer to see criminality as a condition of the mind. an inability to see the consequences of actions, the inabilty to empathise and an inability to take moral decisions.
if crime was all the criminals fault and had nothing to do with society then you'll need to explain why criminals are criminals, are they just born bad?
american society needs to take the blame for criminals as criminality is your society. it's not a genetic disorder that more americans commit more crimes than anyone else. there has to be something wrong with the system in order to make that happen.
the idea that america has the highest incarceration rate in the world just because there is more criminals is circular logic. why are there more criminals? because people commit more crime? why do they commit more crime? because they are inherently bad? if so why are americans badder than any other people?
People are how they are due to a mix of nurture and nature.
This means that the criminal, lets call him Jack for simplicity. Jack may have been born in a good neighborhood with good neighbors and brought up with correct values and morals.. yet he still goes and robs a store.
Another young man named... Simon for simplicity. Grows up in a bad neighbor hood... Was raised by his grandmother who taught him to be moral. But dispite his hardships he never commits a crime. Now both thiese people were taught morals, but one was more desperate then the other. Yet the desperate one didn't break the law.
My point by this very ridiculas hypothetical models is to point out that nature can sometimes be the cause, but that nurture(parents, society, etc.) also can play a part. The amount that each plays is definately debateable.
Two brief points:
First, I would like to point out something; this issue may or may not have been raised previously in this thread. That is the issue of accurate DNA testing. Many people have been exonerated of horrible crimes (particularly murder) that they didn't commit, now that this method to prove their innocence exists. Admittedly, there may be situations where DNA testing is not applicable, but this has led to the release of many people who were wrongly convicted. For those people who would take every right from the violent criminal, at least bear in mind that some of them may not be violent criminals after all.
Secondly, although a punitive measure is involved, the primary goal of incarceration should be rehabilitation. When someone commits a crime, that's a terrible thing. However, if no effort is made to reform the individual, then the problem is only compounded. Although the application of such an ideal may be difficult in many real world situations, to abandon it utterly (which many here would seem to rush to do) is a scar upon all of us.
The purpose of incarceration is punishment. Through that, they are somewhat rehabilitated. Like when you're a kid, and you do something bad, and you have to go stand in a corner (we'll use good ol' "time out" for this analogy, no matter how people grew up). Were you standing in a corner, with your mommy or daddy standing beside you lecturing you why you shouldn't have done what you did, or were you standing in a corner in the hopes that you would learn simply through your punishment?
That may not have made as much sense as I had planned. Oh well. The point is, punishment is rehabilitation. Granted, for some crimes/criminals, further rehabilitation may be needed, but there's a big difference in prison and group therapy.
Society is not the cause of crime. As ShunNakamura said, each person is different. You might could blame their response to society, but not society itself. It might be the way the person was raised, or the people they hung out with, or it may very well be that the guy is just a bad person. Who knows? But it's not right for the whole of society to take the blame for the heinous acts of specific individuals.
And America has a high incarceration rate for a lot of reasons. For one thing, there are more laws in America, and more actions that are against the law, than in many other countries. For another, a lot of money is spent on law enforcement, of all varieties.
Yes, DNA has proven many people innocent that were found guilty prior to the extended use of such technology. But that was then, and this is now, and now, a case can hardly get a conviction without DNA evidence. Forensics have improved many times over since just 20 or 30 years ago, and now it is extremely rare for a person to get wrongly convicted. It may happen, but it's prettymuch almost unheard of.
see, your own anology helps to prove my point. How many times where you given "time out", only to be put back in time out for the very thing that got you put there the first time? Punishment is obviously not a deterrant. What you have to do is explain to people why what they did was wrong and help them to be a better person, along with the punishment. Punishment alone is not the key. All punishment does is give you the time to figure out how not to get caught the next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Hmm.. Actually I got paddled rather then Time out. But anyways I never commited the same thing twice... I'll tell you that much... Being paddled at a young age isn't fun. Now, of course, it wouldn't bother me, but father has also evolved his punishment techniques.. He punishes me where it hurts worse.. I have almost never been grounded.. Not a deterent for me, well not usually. However, take away my book and computer access and I go nuts.. utterly so. That is PAINFUL.Quote:
Originally Posted by AkiraMakie
Anyways point being, punishment can be a deterent you just got to make sure it bothers the person you are trying to deter. Sometimes it may seem inhumane.. but I doubt they'll want to be caught again.
Actually, I was rarely punished more than once for things I did. (I wasn't put in "time-out" either, I got my ass kicked, and I learned damn well from it.) The only thing I did more than once, prettymuch, was being lazy with my schoolwork. Quite often I wouldn't do my homework or study or anything, and even though I made great grades in class, my lack of motivation out of class brought down my average something fierce. So I was beat, grounded, etc. quite often for that. One time I was made to not step out of my room except to go to the bathroom, school, or come into the kitchen to make the only thing my parents allowed me to eat for that time, which was a bologna sandwich. And I didn't have a TV or games or a computer or anything like that in my room, either.
The point is, even though there's obviously a difference between children and grown adults (or, rather, there should be), punishment serves mainly as a deterrant for crime. As in "If I do (whatever crime), I'll have to go through (whatever punishment), and I don't want to do (punishment), so I won't do (crime).
ShunNakamura makes a good point--as long as the punishment effects the criminal, it will serve as a deterrant. Some kids may not give a damn if they have to stand in a corner for a couple minutes and not get attention paid to them, but some kids are absolutely crushed if they have their games, computer, freedom, etc. taken away from them. Sometimes different types of punishment effect different types of people. The only problem is that it would be difficult to implement a system like that, plus, as was pointed out, some would consider it "inhumane"... I guarantee you, if we started caning people like they do in Singapore, we'd have a hell of a lot less crime. But, obviously, that's not really an option. The only thing we can do is make our prisons tougher.
Well, you two must've grew up as good, never breaking the same rule twice kids. Me, i must be criminal minded then, cause the only thing ass whippings did for me is teach me not to get caught twice for the same stuff. I mean, getting beatings, or whippings, or spankings, or wahtever you want to call it, only works but so many times. I mean, After awhile, i didnt even bother trying to hide the fact that i was doing bad stuff cause i was no longer afraid of getting a beating. I guess it all depends on how you grew up when it comes to this one.
Well I think I pointed it out in my above thread. You must punish the person so it hurts them. If not it won't work. So once the punishment stops being effective you must change. I know my parents did so.
And anyways I believe it was when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade, I used to get up at night and sneak stuff from the fridge and make noise. This is one of the few repeating crimes I did. Mainly cause I always got away with it. I could get back up in my bed before Father could do anything.. and my bed always was unstable.
Father wised up, and since we were making an addition on the house at the time he took a 8-10 foot long 2x4 and hid it near the hallway leading to my room... I made it to my bed intime.. but so did the 2x4. And I'll tell you know that that hurt like HELL. I couldn't walk right for several days afterwards... nope no more making father mad for me... he might use a steel bar next time.
Or at least that is what I thought at the time. now it wouldnt' bother me much.... but now Father will find a way to disable me in other ways, such as restricting computer access, or my access to books.
Grounding and timeouts never did work on me, but they sure work on my sisters.. they are addicted to being social.. locking them in a room for a day or two teaches them to be better... however they tend to repeat... at least when mom is the punisher.. when Father does it it is another story... He has left bruises just by grabbing our wrists before, if he decides it is paddling time it hurts. not to mention he is brainy enough to hit you where it hurts, whether that is paddling, refusing to buy new clothes, or refusing to allow computer access, or any number of things, Father will do it... even if it would discomfort himself a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
Well, i didnt grow up with my father, so i never had to worry about stuff like that, and as for my mother, well, she tried to switch it up. to stuff like punishment, but she wasnt home often cause she was usually at work most of the time. So i was home for a good portion of the day by myself. So any little silly punishment she could hand down would be ignored. I had it pretty easy now that i think about it.
True about the parent at work thing... I mean dad works a lot know.. and it is only as of late that my sisters have started to get out of hand... they won't try dad's mettle.. .but mom.. that is another story.
Which is completey off topic but bleh...
Criminals lose rights when they go to prison that is that. Punishment can deter crime, but won't alwasy, particually if people don't focus enough on making sure the criminal can't stand the punishment. Also Prisons should focus on rehabilitation... many times punishment alone will not work. But punishment+rehab works where rehab or punishment alone would not.
This is how I see this thread so far.
okay enough about various parents.
saying that america has a high prison ratio due to more laws is false. look at gun crime for instance, this isn't caused by the ability to have guns, look at the gun ownership rates in canada and switzerland and look at their gun crime rates, and are there any doubts that shooting someone or shoving a gun under their nose is against the law? so if more laws and more guns can't be blamed for this crime what can? america is unique for this, and what is also unique about america? it's soceity. it's not it's mix of people, it's not it's richness, it's not it's poorness all, of these are visible in other countries. what is so unique about america is it's society and the rich-poor gap. and that must be looked at to find a cause of crime.
punishment does not stop crime. we've been using punishment for thousands of years no, has crime dropped? no it has risen. keep hitting something with a hammer does not always work. why not try something different? if it's not broken don't fix it, well the punishment is broken and has never worked.
But cloud punishment does work. IF you make sure it is a punishment that the criminal will not want to be put through again. Keep in mind even if someone does not think of something consciousally, their subconcious may still supress certian actions.
As for the "spawn of the moment" crimes. For that you need some punishemnt(perhaps the subconcious surpression will help there) and rehab.
Actually effective Rehab + effective punishment is what would deter crime... unfortunately the US lacks both of those values.
in britain people used to hang for theft, be burned at the stake for blasphemy, be put in the stocks, the rack, be hung drawn and quarted. once these were done once people didn't stop crime. it continued. after these were done 100 times crime continued after they were the millionth time crime continued and people decided that it was all abit of an inhuman idea in the first place. but tough punishment failed, is still failing and will forever fail.
Ah, but you see some people do not fear death. If I want to do something, the threat of death won't really deter me, unless I think about it alot.
However lets say a form of torture so unbearable that the thought of it alone makes me go mad... that would definately deter me.
However Rehab is also a must.
Cruel punishment works, would work, and has always worked, what don't people understand about that? There will always be crime--no amount of punishment will ever completely erase crime. But would you steal if you knew you were gonna get your hand chopped off for it? Would you vandalize somebody's property if you knew that some martial arts guy was gonna take a cane and beat the hell out of you with it? I don't think so.
obviously that does work neither because in other countries that have all of those cruel punishments, people still steal and vandalize and murder people. Are you gonna tell me that those countries with those punishments dont have crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
What the hell is wrong with y'all. Nobody said that any country doesn't have crime! There will always be crime, nothing we can do would prevent crime entirely.
Damn, what's so hard to understand here?
However, countries with stricter laws and harsher punishments have LESS crime than do others that pander to "criminal rights".
switzerland, scandanavia, canada, all have low rates of crime and wanna guess what else they have? sentences based more on rehab than punishment. so called "light punishment". countries with strict punishment can also have low crime rates. true enough but again alot of this is again down to society. having heavy or light punishment would still fail in america until the country changes. light punishment has proven to be more effective in rehabilition of offenders, giving them skills to become tax paying workers not sitting on the dole but too scared to commit another crime. heavy punishment still does not deal with the main cause of crime, light punishment does.
That is why you use BOTH....
How many times must I try and say that.
Hard Punishment will help deter those who can follow other routes.. and for those people who, no matter how harsh the punishment, will still commit crime there would be rehab... and punishment.. perhaps they will realize it is worse then they thought.. and take their new rahabliitated self and make a new start.
BOTH is the choice we should make. It is just like phsycological illness, medicine, doesn't always work alone. Therapy, doesn't always work alone.. but combine both together and success rates raise.
So combine both harsher punishment and better rehab. Because currently we lack BOTH!
That depends on what you consider "the main cause of crime". I see lack of respect for the law as one of the main causes of crime, and "heavy punishment", as you put it, would definitely take care of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
you know what, this is a very true post. That is the problem with america and its crime. The inequality that we have. The gap between the rich and the poor is huge here in america. Thats what spawns alot of crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
And tought penalties wont solve the problem because that may be a deterant for the man being punished not to do the crime again, but the next guy might not care about that. Tough punishments have never stopped crime, or even lessened it. There obviously needs to be another way. another system.
They also have much smaller populations. Let's use Singapore as an example; http://www.citypopulation.de/Singapore.html . I'll round down and say four million. Four million people in Singapore, where cruel punishment is publically practiced. And yes, they have low rates of violent crime. But there are only four million of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
There are three hundred million Americans.
In short, I don't really think public displays of cruel and unusual punishment really have any effect on the crime rate. I feel that the lower crime rate is misinterpreted as directly relating to punishment type when it REALLY relates directly to population, education, and over all balance in standard of living. All of which, I believe, Singapore has.
And I also don't understand the argument that, while we'll never be rid of crime, we should use almost criminal methods to punish that crime. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
And several of you have an awful tone towards your fellow forum members in this thread. Cut it out, please.
I apologize, I didn't mean to say that they have less crime, I meant that they have a lower crime rate. That doesn't mean less crime, that means less percentages. Obviously many places would have less crime than the United States, seeing as they would have a lower population, but there's a difference in the numbers. Less crimes per capita, violent crimes, etc. etc.
I don't think "the gap between the rich and poor" has anything to do with crime, either. For one thing, there's a rather large Middle Class in America, plus the beauty of Capitalism ensures that people who work hard can move their way up, combined with the American freedom that protects every indivudual's rights to be able to go out and find a job, to work and make money. It's the people that don't want to work for their money that are committing the crimes, and that's not something to blame on the economics of the country, that's something to blame on those people.
to actually get back on the subject of criminal rights. i see it as this.
criminal = human and therefore has all the human rights gave to him by the eu, un, geneva and all other conventions and constitutions which apply.
to simply say some people deserve less rights than others is a slippery slope. to prejudice against a minority to such an extent that you say they no longer have human rights is coming very very close to edge of a very high cliff. at all times must basic human be given to anyone and to say this isn't true for some is sickening.
whether criminality is something to be punished or cured is still up for discussion but talk of removing limbs as punishment is totally reprehensible. and in what many believe to be the country with the height of freedom and justice shouldn't we be aiming higher than this?
A minority? They're not a certain race or anything like that, they're criminals. Now, sure, they should be afforded basic human rights--if they're under the care of the government, they should be given BASIC, nutritional food, and sanitary living conditions. And also, criminals should not be treated extremely cruel--there are a lot of things that fall under "cruel and unusual punishment", but there are also a lot that DON'T.
Criminals get TV? Hell no. Maybe CNN or FOX News, maybe CSpan, that's it. Reading material? Research books, encyclopedias, novels. And current newspapers. No porn, no smut, no dirty magazines. Conjugal visits? No friggin way.