Descent BB

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

   Descent BB Forum Index > Ethics and Commentary > "Dying Inside: Elderly in prison" Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Grendel
Ninja Admin




PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:02 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

This more a FYI -- didn't really fit in the youtube thread but it's quite interesting.

Dying Inside: Elderly in prison

Quote:
The US' massive prison population is getting older.

Long sentences that were handed out decades ago are catching up with the American justice system.

Prisons across the country are dedicating entire units just to house the elderly.

During difficult economic times, the issue has hit a crisis point. Estimates are that locking up an older inmate costs three times as much as a younger one.

How are prisons dealing with this issue? Who are the prisoners that are turning gray behind bars?

Josh Rushing gains exclusive and unprecedented access to jails and prisons across the country to tell the story.


(Shot on a 5DII FWIIW :] )

_________________
Borders? I have never seen one. But I have heard they exist in the minds of some people. -- Thor Heyerdahl
Durch einen Stich bereits geschafft, erschlafft und ohne Saft und Kraft! -- Donald, examining a Deflator Dextrospirillus
Woodchip
Ace




PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:56 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

So some guy gets 50 years to life and someone is just now figuring out that this inmate will get old and need more expensive care?
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:01 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I don't think that's the issue so much as how very many of them managed to survive so long...

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Dedman
Insane!




PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:02 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Sounds like an issue of inefficient cellmate matchups Twisted Evil
Beowulf
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:17 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

get those inmates to go clean up the gulf beaches...kill two birds with one stone, both literally and metaphorically.

_________________
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Fiend
Hotshot




PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:57 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

WOW I just think that could have been me, glad I dodged the couple 25-99's in TX
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:08 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Seems to be mostly the Rehabilitation vs Punishment question.
Basically the question is whether or not the primary purpose of the criminal justice system should be
A) Deal out REVENGE (ie: punishment) onto offenders, or to
B) Fix (ie: rehabilitate) offenders (via therapy and training) so they can re-enter society as productive law abiding citizens.

Beowulf wrote:
get those inmates to...


sounds like they're already kept pretty busy

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Woodchip
Ace




PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:05 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

roid wrote:
Seems to be mostly the Rehabilitation vs Punishment question.
Basically the question is whether or not the primary purpose of the criminal justice system should be
A) Deal out REVENGE (ie: punishment) onto offenders, or to
B) Fix (ie: rehabilitate) offenders (via therapy and training) so they can re-enter society as productive law abiding citizens.

Beowulf wrote:
get those inmates to...


sounds like they're already kept pretty busy


Roid there is the third option of removing a convicted danger to society and keeping him from committing more criminal actions. Charles Manson comes to mind as one such individual.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:39 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Can't we just send them to Australia and let the Drop Bears take care of 'em?

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:09 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Woodchip wrote:
roid wrote:
Seems to be mostly the Rehabilitation vs Punishment question.
Basically the question is whether or not the primary purpose of the criminal justice system should be
A) Deal out REVENGE (ie: punishment) onto offenders, or to
B) Fix (ie: rehabilitate) offenders (via therapy and training) so they can re-enter society as productive law abiding citizens.

Beowulf wrote:
get those inmates to...


sounds like they're already kept pretty busy


Roid there is the third option of removing a convicted danger to society and keeping him from committing more criminal actions. Charles Manson comes to mind as one such individual.


Is there actually an existing program to rehabilitate Charles Manson?
I don't know that there is. And I can't see how such a program would gain ground in the current political climate of Punishment-based incarceration.
It's just too progressive an idea for many societies - it'll take decades of campaigning to change minds. Add to the mix the popular anti-progressive forces in society (eg: FOX news, religion, etc), it's practically a non-starter in a culture like USA.

We currently do have specific jails for the criminally insane, perhaps Charles Manson is in one i don't know.
I'd like to see ALL jails converted into jails for the criminally insane, in various intensities (eg: low security, high security). I'd basically like all jails converted into mental health centers. Reduce the amount of people uselessly languishing in jail (what a waste of time and human potential), and increase the amount of people getting active help for the clear and obvious problems (anger issues, inability to talk about emotions, etcetc) that drove them to crime in the first place. They do this kindof stuff in Drug rehab, because they recognise that it's these kinds of problems that tend to put people at high risk of abusing* drugs. It's also a good predictor of criminality too, jails are full of very troubled people.
(*As in over-use, become dependant, or just use dangerously).

It's entirely possible people like Charles Manson could not be rehabilitated with the limits of today's psychiatric technology. Maybe not today's technology, but maybe tomorrows.
We're not going to learn anything about howto formulate treatments for people like Charles Manson just by watching him pace up and down his cell, we need him to at least be surrounded with psych students so we can learn something.
If he is untreatable (i find this hard to believe), people like Charles Manson can be put into "storage" in out current existing high security prisons for the criminally insane where they can be studied, until such a time that they can be treated. In all honesty the line between study and treatment is blurred, as typically existing and new treatments (as long as they are non-harming) are continually trialled until something works. There's less and less "throw away the key, hopeless cases" and more and more people who just need good psychiatric HELP. If we don't help these people get the help they need, the consequences for society are clear. We will fill our jails with society's maladjusted malcontents - so prettymuch exactly what jails are right now.

Now away from the hopeless cases, and back to the topic of converting jails into mental health centers:
Everyone needs good mental health. Everyone wants to live a happy, fulfilling life.
Mental health as a field has long ago left behind the "outof sight outof mind" Lunatic Asylum PRISON mentality that Faulcault lauded against. Thesedays even healthy people seek the aide of psychologists to help them live happier and more fulfilling lives.

If society is serious about preventing crime - we should also make it a lot easier to access EXISTING mental health centers and community centers to encourage greater mental health and mental resiliancy in general in society. Thus preventing people from going off the rails and resorting to criminal activity in the first place, and providing easy access to interventions where necessary particularly in high risk people (ie: having easy to access treatment for high risk people BEFORE they resort to crime).

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:41 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Rehabilitation is a term I always feel the intense need to ridicule…it implies that the person needing “Rehabilitation” was “habilitated” in the first place, and assumes that evil is cureable.

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:23 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

As comparison to the religious viewpoint: that Original Sin is why people are evil, and thus evil can only be cured by Jesus?

Look at society and you'll see that evil has been decreasing over time as mankind becomes more civilised.
Case in point: The Bible was at one time considered a good moral compass. But society's morals have improved since then, and by today's standards the God of the Bible is pretty evil and certainly not someone to emulate. I'll give examples if asked. Modern man is plenty more moral that Jehovah.

I'll take scientific materialism and an academic study of ethics over that anyday.

Give me an example of specific real criminal acts, in particular give me a good description of the criminal's background, behavior, personalitity etc, and their motives for commiting the acts.
and i'll give you an example of a psychotherapy technique, or societal action or intervention that could have prevented it - or cured it after the fact.

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:58 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

How many times do you need to be told…I’m not a christian.

Edit:

Good and evil are concepts, and have the same reality as any other concept.

People make the choice to be evil or good, and if I were to explore your line of reasoning, then “good” would be the normal state of mind, and any deviance from that would be something that is “curable” and I just don’t buy that for a microsecond…evil thoughts are the norm for some people.

It’s Yin and Yang.

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:15 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

i'm aware you are not a Christian.

but you must be aware that the religious influence (in particularly Christianity, since we're in the western world) on morality is the primary influence that causes people to think that "evil can't be cured".
It's Original Sin.

You may not be a Christian, but you seem to share their views on morality at least in this subject. Considering the influence Christianity has over Social Conservatism*, it's inevitable.

*particularly since Regan's "Christianity = Anti-Communism" mantra solidified the Authoritarian Warhawks and the Authoritarian Christian Right into BFFs.
The WW2 German fascists had the same idea as the American fascists, but this might be venturing too far into Godwin's law territory.
Geleaned from Googling: communism+atheism+christianity+jingoism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists wrote:
In Germany during the Nazi era, a 1933 decree stated that "No National Socialist may suffer detriment... on the ground that he does not make any religious profession at all".[14] However, the regime strongly opposed "godless communism",[15][16] and most of Germany's atheist and largely left-wing freethought organizations were banned the same year; some right-wing groups were tolerated by the Nazis until the mid 1930s.[17][18] In a speech made later in 1933, Hitler claimed to have "stamped [atheism] out".[14]

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:36 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

And JFTR my thinking is influenced by many different religions, and a lot of secular reasoning as well. But for the life of me, I can’t figure out why I feel the need to explain that to you, seeing how you once told me you don’t really care.

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:42 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

i care atm


edit: oops, i didn't see your further writing on your previous comment:
Spidey wrote:
Good and evil are concepts, and have the same reality as any other concept.

People make the choice to be evil or good, and if I were to explore your line of reasoning, then “good” would be the normal state of mind, and any deviance from that would be something that is “curable” and I just don’t buy that for a microsecond…evil thoughts are the norm for some people.

It’s Yin and Yang.


Quite the contrary to what you suggest, i'm actually an advocate of Neurodiversity. Deviation from a norm is not "bad", and neither would i categorise the norm as "good" in the first place nor is it something to strive for.
I don't use the concepts of Good and Evil, i have been putting them into quotation marks in my comments because they are your words.

What IS something to universally strive for is: happiness, fulfilment, and the diminishment of suffering. Do we agree that these wants are prettymuch universal?
I never said that such things would be enforced. Instead what i'm implying is that people will willingly SEEK out these things if they are given the opportunity. Most people who are in jail, would have rather not been in a situation where they commited the crime in the first place. A coke or heroin addict would rather NOT steal to support her habit. Assuming there's no psychological malady she's trying to medicate away with the drugs (an unlikely caveat, but it makes the paragraph shorter): she'd rather her drugs be more affordable and/or addiction treatment options were more effective and easier to access.

I think that given enough opportunity, people WILL seek to escape their maladies. If more intensive therapy etc were given in jails, and efforts made to open the inmates up to the use of them without it been seen as a weakness - i think more prisoners would attain positive mental health outcomes and be at lesser risk of reoffending. The effect could be amplified in conjuction with the other suggested rehabilitation techniques such training, greater community support, greater access to mental health services once they are outof jail, etc.

Spidey wrote:
...evil thoughts are the norm for some people.
Woa woa woa. I never said anything about "Evil Thoughts". I'm talking about stuff like not being able to express your emotions being treatable with psychotherapy, and anger and violence issues being able to be treated with anger management. Just stuff that would put you at serious risk of commiting criminal acts. I'm not talking about some kinda Re-Nedrification, treatment is entirely voluntary.
Rather than force people into treatment, i think a better idea is to just raise the standards of mental-health and social-support in society to a very high level where general awareness of mental health issues is so high that high-risk people will already be getting the help they need. Or if they do commit crimes and goto jail - it should wake them up to seek the help they need, which will be readily available (and encouraged). If they are in prison - surely it's accepted that THEY HAVE PROBLEMS.

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Woodchip
Ace




PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:44 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I think the only way to rehab. someone like Manson is a bullet thru the head.
Avder
Hotshot




PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:58 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I think rehab. is a very good thing to to, but it has to be accepted that some crimes are so heinous that rehabilitation is really not an option, beause even if you get the person in question fixed up and cured, society is NEVER going to accept that person.

Hell, lets cite Hitler as an example. Lets say we managed to capture him and put him in a psych ward for 50 years and finally, hes "cured" and released. Is society going to accept him and even allow him to attempt a normal life?

Same thing with people like Manson. Sure, you could cure him but you'd need to keep him locked away anyway because there is no way the outside world is going to let him back into it.

And then there's the simple fact that the victims of the crime aren't going to buy it. They suffered a loss that can never be truly fixed. It doesn't matter for the most part if the perpetrator was sane or insane at the time. They're probably not going to care, because hes still alive, and whatever they lost is not there.

Its a lot more than just changing the system from punishment to rehabilitation. Its going to be getting the public at large to believe the rehabilitated really is as said.
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:29 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Honestly could you imagine yourself molesting some kid or raping some woman or killing someone in cold blood? Something wrong with those folks and IMO, being locked up in a cell for 23 hours a day is cruel punishment. Should just go ahead and nix em. That would be more merciful than a life in a 5x8 cell. I don't see it as vengeance. I see it as good riddance.
Zuruck
Ace




PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:05 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Flip wrote:
Honestly could you imagine yourself molesting some kid or raping some woman or killing someone in cold blood?


Yes.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:02 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Flip wrote:
...IMO, being locked up in a cell for 23 hours a day is cruel punishment. Should just go ahead and nix em. That would be more merciful than a life in a 5x8 cell.


Following that logic, you'll be advocating euthanasia for quadriplegics next...

Life in a cell would be preferable to death for me. I could imagine, I could read, I could draw, I could write, I could create...

Please don't make decisions for others. Life is sweet even with limitations.

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Woodchip
Ace




PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:25 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

If you raped and murdered a child, why should you be entitled to a limited but still sweet existence.
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:48 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Um no, your logic doesn't apply here. I was speaking explicitly about murderers, rapist and child molesters. Anyone that commits such a HORRENDOUS crime such as these does not deserve a sweet existence.

Quote:
Life in a cell would be preferable to death for me. I could imagine, I could read, I could draw, I could write, I could create...


Yeah that sounds wonderful, all except the fact that you lose those luxuries when you commit crimes such as these. What you want no matter counts because you threw it all away when you decided to take that right away from someone else.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:49 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Okay I'm confused. Is it too cruel or too luxurious? Make up your mind. More later when i'm not posting from my cellphone...

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:31 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Hmm, I'll clarify this for you with the sneaking suspicion you might just be trying to be obtuse.

being locked up in a cell for 23 hours a day= too cruel.
sweet existence= too luxurious.

If you take those 2 and really consider them, you'll realize there's no conflict there at all.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:34 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I simply disagree with your contention that death is preferable to having limitations on your existence. Life is almost always preferable to the lack thereof. There are certainly exceptions, but merely being locked up is not one of them. Existence locked in a 5 x 8 cell for cell for 23 hours a day is only "sweet" by comparison with the alternative - but in comparison it is sweet indeed. Your base assumption is faulty, and I called you on it because it didn't make any sense.

On the subject of crime and punishment, I confess to some ambivalence in regards to the death penalty. It's extremely final. On the other hand I find it abhorrent in the extreme to pay for the "privilege" of keeping those truly guilty of horrendous crimes alive..

As new forensic and investigative techniques come into play there are inevitably convictions that are reversed - innocent people who were unjustly convicted are being set free on quite a regular basis... and there truly is such a thing as redemption, rehabilitation, whatever you wish to call it. It's not a certainty, but the possibility exists... Quite a conundrum... How do you reconcile institutionalized murder with your cosmological beliefs?

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Avder
Hotshot




PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:00 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Flip wrote:
Honestly could you imagine yourself molesting some kid or raping some woman or killing someone in cold blood? Something wrong with those folks and IMO, being locked up in a cell for 23 hours a day is cruel punishment. Should just go ahead and nix em. That would be more merciful than a life in a 5x8 cell. I don't see it as vengeance. I see it as good riddance.


Rape and child molestation, no.

Murder? Yes, I can imagine many scenarios where I could justify that to myself and be in such a position to consider it worth it despite the dire consequences.
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:01 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Avder, I said cold blooded murder. That is to kill someone out of hate and malice with no cause. Let someone try to harm my family or me and I'll cut their head off with no bad feelings at all.

This comes down to fundamentals I guess Bunyip. I believe that life continues even after the body dies. You don't. So, having that belief for myself, I would much prefer death of my physical body over being confined for the rest of my life. You feel differently and that's cool too. I can only speak for myself.
Yes you have a point about people being convicted unjustly, so in my opinion, only those who have been convicted on undeniable proof of their guilt should be sentenced to death row. Anyone else actually who cannot be found undeniably guilty should be set free. That was the whole premise for our initial justice system. It was setup in such a way that it was preferable to let a guilty person go rather than ever falsely convict the innocent.

Now you call it institutionalized murder. I guess that's correct but I would like to make it more personal that that. Let's say someone murdered your own daughter or killed your own wife. Now everyone else on the outside looking in can have philosophical beliefs, but you being personally affected will want justice. The death penalty in my opinion is not for the convicted, it's so the ones who have been wronged can continue on with their lives with the feeling of some kind of closure and not live the rest of their lives full of hate.
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:35 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Avder wrote:
...And then there's the simple fact that the victims of the crime aren't going to buy it. They suffered a loss that can never be truly fixed. It doesn't matter for the most part if the perpetrator was sane or insane at the time. They're probably not going to care, because hes still alive, and whatever they lost is not there...


Thankfully, trauma (etc) councilling for victims seems to be more and more commonplace.
Hell - in my corner of the world even cops get councilling after they (justifiably) kill someone. Standard practice.

Woodchip wrote:
If you raped and murdered a child, why should you be entitled to a limited but still sweet existence.

For the purposes of preventing it happening again to others, via yet more purpetrators. If it's a phenomenon happening in society that can be observed - then it's a phenomenon that can be better understood, learned to be identified earlier and under what circumstances it could be predicted*, and perhaps it can even be prevented entirely.
We study these people, and use what we learn about how these people are CREATED to hopefully prevent such people from being created within our society in the first place. AND - so that we can better learn to identfy these people once they already exist in society. Such studies have already lead to a variety of knowledge about the interesting links between serial killers and psychopathy etc. Just watched this a few weeks back:
Psych student talks about "What is a Psychopath?" part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QJDLbrN9q4
part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GukPl_TJg_4


* This bit in particular, i think everyone should be able to appreciate.
- If you can identify and stop a drunk driver on the road BEFORE he runs someone over - you can save lives.
- If you encourage awareness of drunk driving in the general populace to encourage people to stop themselves and their friends/family from driving drunk - you will save even more lives.
- If you can concentrate special efforts on people who meet high-risk criteria for possible drunk-driving and/or are previous drunk drivers, you will prevent a lot of the worst offences/re-offences from happening.
All of these options are better than cleaning up AFTER driver driver deaths.

Autonomous lepar collonies are the thing of the past, we live in a post-enlightenment age. We don't hide from or burn our mistakes - we study them, learn from them, and from this effort we eventually figure out more effective ways to deal with them.
Pitchfork sales are booming

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:24 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Flip you keep changing your story to what you presumably MEANT to say, rather than what you actually SAID.

Flip wrote:
Avder, I said cold blooded murder. That is to kill someone out of hate and malice with no cause. Let someone try to harm my family or me and I'll cut their head off with no bad feelings at all.


2 points here:
1. You said Rapists and Child molesters in the same breath as cold blooded murderers. The implication was clear.
2. I don't have any problem with a clear case of defending oneself or one's family. Go all out and let the cards land where they may... Even vengeance after the fact if you witnessed the crime...although I think there are problems with that too, Charles Bronson.

Flip wrote:
This comes down to fundamentals I guess Bunyip. I believe that life continues even after the body dies. You don't. So, having that belief for myself, I wo`uld much prefer death of my physical body over being confined for the rest of my life. You feel differently and that's cool too. I can only speak for myself.


Whether or not I believe in life after death (and I believe the jury is still out on that one), I do believe in paycheck after paycheck, and it's wrong to steal THIS week's paycheck from me on the premise I'll get another, although I do agree that you have a right to offer yours up for the taking - just don't offer MINE based on your beliefs...

Flip wrote:
Now you call it institutionalized murder. I guess that's correct but I would like to make it more personal that that. Let's say someone murdered your own daughter or killed your own wife. Now everyone else on the outside looking in can have philosophical beliefs, but you being personally affected will want justice. The death penalty in my opinion is not for the convicted, it's so the ones who have been wronged can continue on with their lives with the feeling of some kind of closure and not live the rest of their lives full of hate.


I too believe that people who commit heinous crimes such as senseless murder of innocents give up their right for existence. If you can prove it beyond any doubt I guess I'm gonna have to say chop their fucking heads off and good riddance - but once again I have problems with the concept of vengeance and becoming what you oppose.

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:01 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Jesus man do you actually think I can sum up the total of my feelings on a subject in a 3 sentence paragraph? Or do i have to sit down and explain every single point for you? My story is not changing your just fuckin nitpicking.You got me. Although the 3 do fit in the same category as "HEINOUS" which is why I used them in the same sentence AND IN MY OPINION, if I'm entitled to one, good riddance to all of them. I'm not sure how I feel about putting rapists and molesters to death but my feelings on murderers is very clear to me. That's my point about the government doing it is so I DON'T HAVE TO. It's done collectively so no one individual shares the responsibility to do it themselves. You seem to have a hardon towards me trying to prove me inconsistent, when In reality I just don't have the damn inclination to sit down and argue every single point of this argument.

Quote:
I too believe that people who commit heinous crimes such as senseless murder of innocents give up their right for existence. If you can prove it beyond any doubt I guess I'm gonna have to say chop their fucking heads off and good riddance


Exactly what I said and how I feel about murderers.

Quote:
Whether or not I believe in life after death (and I believe the jury is still out on that one), I do believe in paycheck after paycheck, and it's wrong to steal THIS week's paycheck from me on the premise I'll get another, although I do agree that you have a right to offer yours up for the taking - just don't offer MINE based on your beliefs...


If you murder someone, YOU gave up your paycheck not me. Doesn't matter if you believe in an afterlife or not. It really has no other bearing in the discussion except "for how I would feel if I was locked up in a cage" which is what I said in my first post. To me personally being locked away for 23 hours a day is cruel and you might as well get over this but were all gonna die, and to take anothers life unjustly means you forfeit your own and no longer get to choose for yourself.

Just to make this easier.

Quote:
Honestly could you imagine yourself molesting some kid or raping some woman or killing someone in cold blood? Something wrong with those folks and IMO, being locked up in a cell for 23 hours a day is cruel punishment. Should just go ahead and nix em. That would be more merciful than a life in a 5x8 cell. I don't see it as vengeance. I see it as good riddance.


Let me try to explain this. Raping, killing molesting are bad things, I put them here in the in the same category as things "could you imagine yourself doing". Something is wrong with those folks who rape kill and molest "so good riddance" Rapists and molesters normally do not get put on death row so they do not sit in a cell for 23 hours a day(so they don't apply here), only murderers do, which is cruel to me. I don't see it as vengeance I see it as :

Quote:
The death penalty in my opinion is not for the convicted, it's so the ones who have been wronged can continue on with their lives with the feeling of some kind of closure and not live the rest of their lives full of hate.


Quote:
Honestly could you imagine yourself molesting some kid or raping some woman or killing someone in cold blood? Something wrong with those folks and IMO, being locked up in a cell for 23 hours a day is cruel punishment. Should just go ahead and nix em. That would be more merciful than a life in a 5x8 cell. I don't see it as vengeance. I see it as good riddance.


You do realize that this took about 1 minute to write and cannot possibly take into account all the finer points of an issue like this. If not, well than thats what it was. If so then i stand by my hardon comment Razz
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:35 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I suppose we understand each other now and can move on. Smile

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:57 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

LOL, I think the internet is probably the worst form of communication that exists. I actually enjoy the discussions but I hate when I feel like I'm being pigeonholed.
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:05 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

USA has one of the highest incarceraton rates in the world. AFAIK now over 1% of USA's imprisonable (ie: adult) population is in jail.

I made this image over 5 years ago iirc


Is this necessary?
Is this actually because USA has more criminals?
Or is it because the nation is so delighted in it's own crypto-fascism that they will never let a Third rail issue such as this to be brought up without instantly burying it in hurled peanuts.
Anyone who dares the question the extreme-right authortarian stance is labeled HURR WEAK ON CRIME HURRR.
Arn't we better than this?
No, no we're not. We humans are idiots, i got the memo.

If we can't vote these mud-slinging troglodyte lowest-common-denominator retards outof our halls-of-democracy fast enough, then maybe the only way we're going to get through this is by gingerly pushing to let another Nixon "goto China" on this issue. (ie: only someone who is already seen as "tough on crime" is in a position to actually suggest that society question their obsession with "tough on crime". We need someone to act as a wedge*)
Which means we're sadly going to have to attempt to build another Nixon and actually let him into office - build someone who can alleviate the concerns of the "i only vote for the toughest motherfucker on the ballot" village idiots, without being a disaster for the nation (like Bush was, McCain would have been, and Palin will be yet again).
Given the laughable state that Conservative politics is currently in right now (particularly after Bush) - this is clearly going to be a loooong process. Dropping Sarah Palin, in favour of someone with a more significant IQ, might at least get the ball starting to roll in the correct direction.
As it stands now it's like the Republican party has no respect for their voters: "You voted for Bush lol, so you'll probably vote for any idiot we put infront of you regardless. We don't need to really try"


*(re: wedge). But i doubt that will be allowed to happen. Politicians (particularly in USA which lacks a preferential voting system) know that they are only in power because they have merged a variety of politcal bases. The Republican party is a mix of Neo-Cons, Social Conservatives, Jingo Neo-colonialists, and Classical liberalism/Libertarians. Collectively they all appreciate the power they have as a whole, and would not give this up. They will resist wedges that will split them up into separate parties because they would lose power (because USA has no preferential voting, it has inevitably devolved into a strict 2 party system).

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Krom
DBB Admin




PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:18 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

The reason so many people end up in prison in the US is because the prison lobbyists wanted it that way. The prison system in the US is largely privately owned and is very profitable.

The prison industry is constantly pushing for tougher punishments and cracking down on crime, they also are the first group out there that will form an army and battle it out against any attempt to legalize drugs. The war on drugs is the prison industries major lifeline, that is also why they focus entirely on punishment and don't do anything about actually helping people overcome the problems that often lead to substance abuse in the first place.

They know throwing more people in prison doesn't work, but that is exactly the point; they don't want it to work. If it really did work they would be out of a job!

Ain't unregulated, dog eat dog, in bed with the government capitalism grand?

_________________
(19:11) [D3k]Gooberman: pffft, I didnt get owned baal, you just got 60 lucky fusion shots
View previous topic :: View next topic  
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Jump to:  
   Descent BB Forum Index > Ethics and Commentary > "Dying Inside: Elderly in prison"

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Image hosting by postimage.org Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group