Liberals get coveted endorsement from Criminals

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Most states have the death penalty...though i havent a clue what that has to do with this discussion.

If you read the thread, its pertinent because there's a correlation being posited that harsher prison sentences = less repeat offenders, and an increased unwillingness for people to commit crimes. A counter point to that suggested that many US states have the death penalty, but that crime (and repeat crime) in those states is comparable (if not more frequent) than places that impose lighter sentences.

Thats what it has to do with this discussion.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

No, but you're taking it WAY too far, Rouge. We're not saying they should be stuck in boxes, perhaps a little work and education? Maybe some sports? Or should they just sit in front of a tv and vegitate for 5 years?

conservative ideology generally supports cheap incarceration. TV is cheap. Education is expensive. A balance has to be achieved that allows for both priorities, for costs sake.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

If you read the thread, its pertinent because there's a correlation being posited that harsher prison sentences = less repeat offenders, and an increased unwillingness for people to commit crimes. A counter point to that suggested that many US states have the death penalty, but that crime (and repeat crime) in those states is comparable (if not more frequent) than places that impose lighter sentences.

Thats what it has to do with this discussion.

Uhhh...here i thought it was about how prisoners were treated while in prison...not how long they were there for or if the death penalty was any way a part of that.

At any rate....the death penalty is a good idea in some cases and not-so-much in others.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You didn't answer my question. It's a simple one. Which guy would have a better chance at being a normal person? The guy in solitary cofinement in a dark cage for 5 years, or the other guy?

You want a yes or no answer for a hypothetical, yet complex issue. You and I have both cited examples were harsh punishment may or may not be detrimental. The contention remains that Canada has a pretty cushy prison system

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Did you even read the hard facts and statistics that you provided?
5.9 per cent of all sexual offenders and 8.5 per cent of repeat offenders committed a new violent offence.

5.9 per cent? Is that a high number? Does that mean that they are "highly pre-disposed to re-offend"? Isn't that a 94% success rate?

Talk about being selective in your examples. How about this one:
68.8 per cent of all sexual offenders and 48.8 per cent of repeat offenders did not return to jail.
That means 31.2% and 51.2 % respectively are re-offenders - once a criminal always a criminal

And yes, 5.9% is a high number. There are 35000 prisoners in Canada - thats 1 in 1000. Even if they were all sexual offenders, 0.1% is a lot different than 5.9%. Of course they are not all sexual offenders, so the percentage is a hell of a lot lower

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Uhhh...here i thought it was about how prisoners were treated while in prison...not how long they were there for or if the death penalty was any way a part of that.

At any rate....the death penalty is a good idea in some cases and not-so-much in others.

Yeah, well, threads evolve.

If you read it, there was an idea that treating them more harshly may reduce the likelihood of repeat offenders (Singapore example). Thats how the two concepts were connected. Length of term/capital punishment was, I assume, included in the 'harsh penalty' category. But since I didn't put forward that idea, I'm not sure if that was how it was intended.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

You want a yes or no answer for a hypothetical, yet complex issue. You and I have both cited examples were harsh punishment may or may not be detrimental. The contention remains that Canada has a pretty cushy prison system

Talk about being selective in your examples. How about this one:
68.8 per cent of all sexual offenders and 48.8 per cent of repeat offenders did not return to jail.
That means 31.2% and 51.2 % respectively are re-offenders - once a criminal always a criminal

And yes, 5.9% is a high number. There are 35000 prisoners in Canada - thats 1 in 1000. Even if they were all sexual offenders, 0.1% is a lot different than 5.9%. Of course they are not all sexual offenders, so the percentage is a hell of a lot lower

They were your examples, not mine.

The plainly obvious answer to my oft-repeated question, which you refuse to answer , is that the person who was treated like a human being is more likely to become a regular member of society.

Okay, 5.9% is a high number. That's open to interpretation but I'll agree with you for the sake of argument. Now, do you really think that number would go down if the prisoners were treated miserably while they were in prison?

This is just common sense. I'm not saying anything revolutionary here. If you treat a person like **** -- if you lock him in a closet, abuse him, deny him basic human rights, decent food, human contact, dignity -- he is not going to suddenly be a nicer guy when you let him out of the closet. He's going to be a lot crazier and a lot more violent than he was when he got there. Of course he will be. Who wouldn't? I know I would. Wouldn't you?

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The plainly obvious answer to my oft-repeated question, which you refuse to answer ...

I've responded to your question twice. I guess I don't see this as 'plainly obvious' because our criminals who are treated like human beings are not necessarily likely to 'become a regular member of society.' In one example, 31.2% are not regular members of society. So if we treated these individuals 'harshly', the supposition is that you would contend that the number would be higher than 31.2%, but I just don't know if that is true.

[Flame On]

You haven't a clue Transplant? I believe you.
Deterrence is being discussed for prisoners and not to make it comfortable. Others think rehabilitation is the answer or part of it. I'd think the harshest treatment you could do to a criminal would be to kill them. Given there's still crimes grave enough to obtain a death penalty in those states, deterrence patently doesn't work. I'm not saying Playstations are warranted but just putting them in to fester will make them more rotten when they get out. IMO
Could you seriously not see that's where I was going with that?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I've responded to your question twice. I guess I don't see this as 'plainly obvious' because our criminals who are treated like human beings are not necessarily likely to 'become a regular member of society.' In one example, 31.2% are not regular members of society. So if we treated these individuals 'harshly', the supposition is that you would contend that the number would be higher than 31.2%, but I just don't know if that is true.

I believe that most people whether criminals or not will react positively if treated with decency. A smaller percentage will take your kindness as weakness and if they get the chance will make you pay. This is where judges and parole boards are supposed to protect us from the incorrigibles. Nothng is gained by dehumanizing anybody.

[FireFly]

And yet we have prisons that are so nice people reoffend just to go back where they don't have to take care of themselves. Does that help society?

[CaptainCrunch]

I'd take all of the T.V's, stereo's, and pool tables out of prisons and replace them with shovels, paving equipment and books. If a prisoner can't read, we'll teach them to read. During thier working times they can learn trades by taking care of the upkeep of thier prisons, gardening, carpentry, cooking and general labour skills.

Prison is a place that people shouldn't want to go to, or ever ever want to return to, if we can give them some skills by working thier buts off for 12 hours a day, and they can learn a key skill like reading and enjoyment of books that works for me.

They should be in prison so they can learn to function in society, watching golden girls marathons is not going to do that.

Period.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'd take all of the T.V's, stereo's, and pool tables out of prisons and replace them with shovels, paving equipment and books. If a prisoner can't read, we'll teach them to read. During thier working times they can learn trades by taking care of the upkeep of thier prisons, gardening, carpentry, cooking and general labour skills.

Prison is a place that people shouldn't want to go to, or ever ever want to return to, if we can give them some skills by working thier buts off for 12 hours a day, and they can learn a key skill like reading and enjoyment of books that works for me.

They should be in prison so they can learn to function in society, watching golden girls marathons is not going to do that.

Period.

I suppose I'll bring this up for the fourth time.

TV is cheaper than teaching them trades, how to read, and other educational skills. conservative ideology places an emphasis on inexpensive incarcertaion. You're suggesting the investment of greater resources into the prison system for the benefit of the prisoners, at the cost to taxpayers like you and me. Period.

How liberal of you.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And yet we have prisons that are so nice people reoffend just to go back where they don't have to take care of themselves. Does that help society?

Maybe we should re-examine society, if the 'nicest' place these people have to go is prison. Though, I seriously doubt that a significant portion of the prison population want to be there because of cable TV. Have you ever been in one? They're not nice places. At all.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I suppose I'll bring this up for the fourth time.

TV is cheaper than teaching them trades, how to read, and other educational skills. conservative ideology places an emphasis on inexpensive incarcertaion. You're suggesting the investment of greater resources into the prison system for the benefit of the prisoners, at the cost to taxpayers like you and me. Period.

How liberal of you.

A) Conservative or Liberal has nothing to do with it.

B) It must be a Liberal ideology since they're the ones that are directly responsible for the current state of the prison systems, and they're the ones that wasted money on building cottage prisons, put golf courses in maximum security prisons, and basically promised a T.V. to every prisoner. Of course the current Liberal Government ideology is to be fairly soft on crimes in the hopes that if they're gentle with murderers, rapists and other thugs, they'll magically reform.

[duncan]

I can't believe this post has gone this far.
It is like 10 virgins arguing over whether sex feels good or not.

for one thing, no one wants to go to jail for the television, cheap blankets and 4'' mattresses, because with them comes crappy meals, isolation and violence. Until you have spent a few days in the environment, you don't know butkus about it. The system has its own culture, its own morals, its own 'laws', and you adhere to it, or suffer the consequences. A prisoner has little personal property, and no personal space, they are frequently strip searched and frisked, their room 'tossed', and their actions supervised. They share common showers with people who have much different views on hygeine, and if lucky, have a small divider to allow a minimal amount of modesty while defecating. Television, Video games, and other items such as personal clothing are perks, for positive behaviour, buying into the institution rules, attending programming, etc. Just like raising kids, you need to have both positive reinforcement and punishment to run an institution. Treat a man like an animal, and you create a worse animal. Capital punishment doesn't work!
The education they get is correspondence, and few if any, have the ability to actually do anything beyond basic reading and writing. If we are lucky, the odd inmate may get their GED while in custody, and may learn a trade.......maybe they will even be fortunate enough to find someone that will hire them with that training. What we hope for the most, is that someone, be it clinical staff, support staff, or officers, reach one of them, and they become a positive statistic. Positive reinforcement doesn't always work, but it works a heck of a lot more than negativity.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

A) Conservative or Liberal has nothing to do with it.

B) It must be a Liberal ideology since they're the ones that are directly responsible for the current state of the prison systems, and they're the ones that wasted money on building cottage prisons, put golf courses in maximum security prisons, and basically promised a T.V. to every prisoner. Of course the current Liberal Government ideology is to be fairly soft on crimes in the hopes that if they're gentle with murderers, rapists and other thugs, they'll magically reform.

Thats why I used a small l 'liberal'. Has nothing to do with the Liberal or Conservative Parties of Canada.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by duncan

I can't believe this post has gone this far.
It is like 10 virgins arguing over whether sex feels good or not.

for one thing, no one wants to go to jail for the television, cheap blankets and 4'' mattresses, because with them comes crappy meals, isolation and violence. Until you have spent a few days in the environment, you don't know butkus about it. The system has its own culture, its own morals, its own 'laws', and you adhere to it, or suffer the consequences. A prisoner has little personal property, and no personal space, they are frequently strip searched and frisked, their room 'tossed', and their actions supervised. They share common showers with people who have much different views on hygeine, and if lucky, have a small divider to allow a minimal amount of modesty while defecating. Television, Video games, and other items such as personal clothing are perks, for positive behaviour, buying into the institution rules, attending programming, etc. Just like raising kids, you need to have both positive reinforcement and punishment to run an institution. Treat a man like an animal, and you create a worse animal. Capital punishment doesn't work!
The education they get is correspondence, and few if any, have the ability to actually do anything beyond basic reading and writing. If we are lucky, the odd inmate may get their GED while in custody, and may learn a trade.......maybe they will even be fortunate enough to find someone that will hire them with that training. What we hope for the most, is that someone, be it clinical staff, support staff, or officers, reach one of them, and they become a positive statistic. Positive reinforcement doesn't always work, but it works a heck of a lot more than negativity.

Perhaps you shouldn't be one to talk about knowing 'butkus'. My cousin through marriage, (not blood,) is in Drum and has been there for 9? years. What do you suppose he's going to do when he gets out? The man doesn't know anything but prison life, and he's done rather well for himself in that setting, being one of the 'tough guys' who gets to push others around. You think he wants to give that up so he can be a nothing on the streets? As a matter of fact, he's actually broken out to ensure that he stays his whole term as previously, he was trying to get out early for good behaviour. He has received an education, and a decent one at that as he's working on a degree right now, but when he gets out, who will want to hire him?

[transplant99]

I'd think the harshest treatment you could do to a criminal would be to kill them.

Well they certainly wouldnt re-offend or come out of jail "worse" than they were now would they?

Given there's still crimes grave enough to obtain a death penalty in those states, deterrence patently doesn't work.

How do you know? How do you know that there havent been guys that thought twice before doing something and chose NOT to do something because of the consequences? Just because there are idiots who dont think ahead or are far to psychotic to care, doesn't mean that the threat of dying hasn't deterred others from committing crimes.

Could you seriously not see that's where I was going with that?

I rarely see where you are going with anything. So nothing new there.

I see the death penalty as a very useful tool as PUNISHMENT, and possibly a deterrent. (In certain cases only) I dont see how throwing guys in jail for life with no possibility of parole while letting them fester in the "hell" that prisons are...is more humane than killing them.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

This is just common sense. I'm not saying anything revolutionary here. If you treat a person like **** -- if you lock him in a closet, abuse him, deny him basic human rights, decent food, human contact, dignity -- he is not going to suddenly be a nicer guy when you let him out of the closet. He's going to be a lot crazier and a lot more violent than he was when he got there. Of course he will be. Who wouldn't? I know I would. Wouldn't you?

I would hardly classify TV and PlayStation basic human rights. Nor would I qualify a free University education basic human right either. How is it fair that I, who has never had anything worse on my record than two parking tickets have had to dig out from under $25,000 in student debt while someone who flaunts society's laws gets it for free?

Beind fed and having access to food is indeed a basic human right, but what would you classify as "decent"? A balanced, healthy diet should be a given, of course, but it certainly should not be anything special.

I'm not advocating putting people in a concrete cube with a hanging light bulb, but there really should be some level of thought put into these things.

Perhaps things like time-limited access to TV and such should be privelages given to those "on the inside" who have shown themselves to earn it. Time in prison should be spent trying to repay society for the wrongs you committed it - doing work and perhaps even earning some token wage for it, not playing Madden 2006.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

I would hardly classify TV and PlayStation basic human rights. Nor would I qualify a free University education basic human right either. How is it fair that I, who has never had anything worse on my record than two parking tickets have had to dig out from under $25,000 in student debt while someone who flaunts society's laws gets it for free?

Beind fed and having access to food is indeed a basic human right, but what would you classify as "decent"? A balanced, healthy diet should be a given, of course, but it certainly should not be anything special.

I'm not advocating putting people in a concrete cube with a hanging light bulb, but there really should be some level of thought put into these things.

Perhaps things like time-limited access to TV and such should be privelages given to those "on the inside" who have shown themselves to earn it. Time in prison should be spent trying to repay society for the wrongs you committed it - doing work and perhaps even earning some token wage for it, not playing Madden 2006.

Yeah, because all they're doing in prison is watching cable tv and playing playstation.

Some of you make it sound like a 4 star hotel in there, sheesh. It ain't. Not even close.