Clarification/Follow-up by purplewings on 05/11/04 11:08 am:
Excon - back in December 2002 I posted a comment such as this on the Social Issues and Causes board. It's called Prison Reform. Maybe you'd like to go there and comment...?
The board could use some input.
PW

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/11/04 11:47 am:
Excon,

>>>You personify the viewpoint, that we treat our prisoners (both Iraqi’s and our own) the way we do because of who they are. However, in the America as it was designed to be by our founding fathers, and codified in the Bill of Rights, this country would treat our prisoners the way we do, because of who WE are. <<<

The Bill of Rights defines abuse as "cruel and unusual punishment". Sorry but treating criminals like criminals is neither cruel nor unsusual. Torture is banned. Punishment is not. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the punishment of criminals, and nothing in the Constitution guarantees a prisoner better food than I have, free cable TV, and a free gym. Nor does it give prisoners collective barganing powers or union status.

And maybe if prison were actually something uncomfortable, fewer people would commit crimes for fear of going to prison.

How many criminals talk about how 'they could do a dime, no sweat'. Well of course they have no fear of spending 10 years in prison... prison's not a bad place to be. You hook up with your fellow gand members, get 3 squares a day, free room and board, free gym equipment, a good library, movies and cable tv, and in many cases, conjugal visits. And all you have to do is put up with the guards' sh*t; they legally can't touch you anyway, and if they do, you sue the government for millions. So just follow the rules, do your time and 'doing a dime' really is no big deal.

That's not punishment. Prison SHOULD be cruel. It should be so cruel that it BECOMES unusual for people to not mind being there. Punishment should actually be punishement.

Cool Hand Luke... now there was how prisons SHOULD be. Or if you prefer, the prison in the movie The Shawshank Redemption. Too cruel for you? That's the idea.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/11/04 4:20 pm:
Purplewings,

Yes that is EXACTLY what I think.

You do the crime, you do the time.

Otherwise, we get what we currently have... crime rates that have skyrocketed, and murders that occur so frequently they aren't even covered in the newspapers anymore. You get people who are too afraid to report a crime, because they know that the criminal won't be punished, and that his life will be in danger for reporting it.

I can understand Excon, who's been through the system, wanting to see the system become softer than it is. From his perspective, it makes sense.

But from the perspective of a law-abiding citizen...?

When are you liberals going to learn that PUNISHING crime works better than REWARDING it.

Do I think that a dope user should be in the same cell as a murderer? Am I worried about how the poor dope user will be treated by the other cons?

If prison discipline were allowed to be properly maintained it wouldn't matter... because the murderer or rapist wouldn't be able to get away with abusing the drug user. If he tried, he's be slapped down HARD... as he should be.

Do I think that prisoners hsouldn't have rights? Sure they should. They should be given edible food, clothing that keeps them warm from the elements and the shelter of a 10x8 cell. For excercize they should be busting rocks or paving highways. That's it. And if they don't like it, they should avoid going to jail in the future.

And if we do that for a couple of years, I GUARANTEE that crime rates will decline to the levels that existed 50 years ago, when prisons of that type existed.

Back then, going to prison was HARD, and people avoided it by not committing crimes. Today, we have gang-bangers who laugh about doing time. It's a status symbol. If you havn't done any time, you're only a junior member of the gangs.

Robert Heinlein wrote essentially the same thing when he argued in favor of public corporal punishment of criminals (whippings, floggings) in Starship Troopers. He argues that when you train a dog not to poop on the carpet, you smack it with a newspaper, you rub its nose in the poop, and you make sure that the dog has gotten the message. You don't coddle the dog and talk nice to it. You don't try to teach it the error of its ways. You use harsh methods to get across harsh messages. If you don't, the dog will never be trained. You only reward the dog once he has proven that he's gotten the message. Heinlein argues (and history seems to bear him out) that training society is no different from training your favorite pet. If you want society to be trained properly, give law enforcement the ability to properly get the message across to society. The jail be harsh and painful. Let the sentences be long and tough. Let criminals suffer. And eventually the idea the criminals can get away with it will go away... and crime will decrease to what a NORMAL society finds tolerable.

Do I think that every single crime should be punished the same way? No. Pot users probably should not be punished the same way as murderers. But the punishments they receive SHOULD be harsh enough to get them to change their ways. They should NOT be coddled, and they should not be treated with kid gloves. I happen to think that pot should be made legal. But as long as it is illegal, those breaking the law should be punished for the crime.

But that is besides the point. Whether you agree the penalty for a crime is the correct penalty or not is besides the point. The point that Excon was making here, and the point that I answered was that the PRISON SYSTEM is messed up. I agree. Unfortunately, where he and I disagree is that he thinks the system is too harsh, whereas I think it isn't harsh enough. But that has nothing to do with the established penalties for specific crimes. It has nothing to do with whether you think drugs should be legal or not.

As for overstepping, I'm a law-abiding citizen. I have never come close enough to breaking a law for it to be an issue. The closest I've come is a speeding ticket... and I cooperated with the trooper who gave me the ticket. I respect the laws, and I have no wish to break them because I have no wish to do the time. I expect the same level of respect for the rule of law from others in society.

Perhaps tougher jails will bring that about.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by chekhovToo on 05/12/04 12:30 am:
ET:
"The Bill of Rights defines abuse as "cruel and unusual punishment". Sorry but treating criminals like criminals is neither cruel nor unsusual. Torture is banned. Punishment is not. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the punishment of criminals, and nothing in the Constitution guarantees a prisoner better food than I have, free cable TV, and a free gym. Nor does it give prisoners collective barganing powers or union status".

This is all very well as applied to citizens of the United States. I'm not sure what the relevance of the US Bill of Rights has in International Law. Can you please clarify the Bill of Rights as applied in another country?

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/12/04 6:58 am:
chekhov,

Your question is irrelevant. Excon was commenting on the US prison system, not the abuse in Iraq.

POW's are protected under 1) The US Military Code of Conduct, and 2) The Geneva Convention.

The Bill of Rights is not relevant in the case of Iraq except as the basis on which the USMCC was created. But the POWs are not US citizens, and are not being held in the USA. They are not criminals, they are POWs. Therefore, the Constitution is not directly relevant to any discusion of Iraqi POWs.

Elliot

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 05/12/04 10:28 am:

Hello Elliot:

>>>I can understand Excon, who's been through the system, wanting to see the system become softer than it is. From his perspective, it makes sense.<<<

Wrong on all counts. You don’t understand me at all. Given our exchanges, you ought to know that I’m no sniveler. My post was not about me. But since you think it is, for the moment, I’ll bring me into it.

I am not a victim – not even of an unjust system. I’m just not built that way. I take full responsibility for my life and I don’t lay blame on anybody or institution for the events that have befallen me. I did what I did, and got what I got. In fact, I have a special ability that allows me to cruise no matter what situation life presents. I adapt; I make adjustments; and frankly, I thrive. I am as comfortable in tails as I was in stripes. Viet Nam was not hard for me, prison was not hard for me, and neither was the business world.

So, let’s get one thing straight, Mr. ETWolverine. I’m not interested in “softer”, and I have no love for criminals or our enemy’s! And that is exactly my point.

It’s not about who I am, and it’s not about who they are. It’s about who WE are. Your side continues to rail on about who they are, as though who they are is a good enough reason to give up who we are. They’re ______ (fill in the blanks), child molesters, drug dealers, terrorists, enemy combatants, Arabs, black. How did you list yours: murderers and rapists?

So, who they are, or who I am, isn’t the point. It’s who we are. We have a code of conduct in these matters called the Bill of Rights. If you notice, it doesn’t tell “them” how to behave, it tells us.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/12/04 10:39 am:
Excon,

Yes, we do have a code of conduct that tells us how to behave. For POWs its the Geneva Convention and the USCMC. For criminals its the Bill of Rights.

Now... where in the Bill of rights is there a guarantee of good-tasting food, cable tv, or free gym time? Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that a prisoner can't be slapped upside the head if he steps out of line... especially in a way that threatens the safety of the guards or other prisoners? Where does it say that a prison cell needs to be a certain size, otherwise the criminal's rights are being violated.

And THAT is my point. I'm all in favor of following the rules. What I'm against is creating a new set of rules based on the 'findings' of the ACLU that people without cable tv are being cuelly and unusually punished. Criminals should not be coddled. They should be punished. Such punishments must remain within the bounds of the Bill of Rights... but not one single iota more. Compare that to today's prison system, and you see why criminals laugh at prison.

Yes, it's about who WE are... people who follow the rule of law regarding prisoners. Not one iota less, but not one iota more either. Because giving criminals new 'rights' every week is a form of coddling or rewarding them. And the last thing we should be doing is coddling or rewarding criminal behavior.

As a strict Constitutionalist, you should appreciate that point of view. The Bill of Rights... no less and no more.

By the way, I apologize for personalizing my posts the way I have. I reviewed what I wrote above, and I realize that I stepped out of bounds in doing so. You've done your time, and you do not deserve to have me throwing your record in your face every time we bring up the subject of prisons and crime. I apologize for doing so, and hope you will accept my apology.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 05/12/04 10:54 am:
Hello Elliot:

Just can’t get off that horse, can you? You still want to talk about them and their color TV’s.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/12/04 12:08 pm:
Why not? Its the perfect example of what I'm talking about... a prison system that no longer punishes, but coddles.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 05/12/04 12:15 pm:

Hello Elliot:

Ok, one last stab at it.

In my answer to a previous query (got 5 stars from you), I said that as long as a thief is locked up, he’s not stealing from me.

That sentiment, in terms of the Constitution, is one we all should have. That is, after all, the purpose of the justice system – to protect us. But I get that you think it’s more, or should be. It should also exact revenge. Now, you’re talking. I understand vengeance. Vengeance is cool. I’m not a nice guy, contrary to what you may believe. And if it were up to me what would happen to these people, well forget about it. But, that again, is the point. It’s not up to me – or to you. Now, if we had some laws on the books or something in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that said we should get vengeance, then I’m all for it. But where does it say any of that?

No, it doesn’t say that anywhere. As a matter of fact it says the opposite. It says, that if you are convicted of a crime you will be sentenced to a period of incarceration AS punishment. It doesn’t say anywhere that you will be sent to prison FOR punishment. I challenge you to show me any law that says a convict is in prison TO BE PUNISHED. You can’t. It’s all made up. That’s because it’s called the justice system, not the vengeance system. And, as long as that guy is locked up and not stealing from you, that, as a citizen, should be the extent of your concern.

I know, you don’t want him to live any better than you. You still want this to be about him. Ok, I’ll say this once, and you should take my word for it, instead of Rush Limbaugh’s. Prison ain’t no piece of cake. Believe me, convicts don’t live better than you, even though they get color TV and have a weight room. Unless you think that they all should be locked up 24 hours a day, then they’ve got to have something to do during the time out of their cells. Or, is solitary confinement ok with you for everybody?

Besides, these people are getting out someday. Wouldn’t you rather he be able to get a job? Not for his sake (you’re certainly not a bleeding heart), but for your own?

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/12/04 1:34 pm:
>>>I said that as long as a thief is locked up, he’s not stealing from me. <<<

And afterward, once he's out of prison...

Unless he has a new understanding of the severity of the punishment for theft, he'll steal again. And right now, the punishment for theft of jail time is not severe enough. That is why there are so many repeat offenders.

>>>That is, after all, the purpose of the justice system – to protect us. <<<

No, the purpose of the justice system is to meet out justice. PROTECTION is the job of the cops, not the jails. ENFORCEMENT is the job of the courts, not the jails. PUNISHMENT is the job of the jails.

>>>It should also exact revenge. <<<

Not revenge, just punishment.

A father who grounds his kid for not doing his homework isn't getting revenge. He's just punishing bad behavior. The punishment may not be pleasant (from the kid's point of view), but that doesn't make it vengeful. And the unpleasantness of the punishment is what teaches the lesson. If it doesn't, harsher measures (the loss of other priveliges, etc.) may be in order.

Right now, we've gotten to the point where we need those harsher measures in the prison system.

>>>And, as long as that guy is locked up and not stealing from you, that, as a citizen, should be the extent of your concern. <<<

Typical liberal short-term thinking: save the trees, but don't worry about the forest fire's they'll cause by not having been cut down.

As I said before, what happens when that theif gets out of jail. If being sent to jail is the extent of the punishment, do you believe that criminals feel punished when they are sent to jail? If they did, there would be much fewer repeat offenders. Clearly it is NOT much of a punishment.

>>>Unless you think that they all should be locked up 24 hours a day... <<<

If as you argue ("It says, that if you are convicted of a crime you will be sentenced to a period of incarceration AS punishment. It doesn’t say anywhere that you will be sent to prison FOR punishment"), jail itself is the punishment, as you stated above, then logically that's exactly what it should mean. Otherwise, where is the punishment of being in jail.

>>>...then they’ve got to have something to do during the time out of their cells. <<<

And you're problem with having them break rocks or pave highways is...?

>>>Or, is solitary confinement ok with you for everybody?<<<

If jail itself is the punishment, then yes.

>>>Wouldn’t you rather he be able to get a job? Not for his sake (you’re certainly not a bleeding heart), but for your own?<<<

Thanks for the compliment.

Yes, I would prefer that he get a job, and I would prefer that he stay legal. But I think we can both agree that the system we have right now isn't accomplishing that. Your solution is to go easier on them, make the system 'less abusive'. But the one thing that history has proven is that when bad people (like terrorists or criminals) are treated nicely, they see it as a sign of weakness, and they abuse the privileges they are given, and they return to their illegal activities. But when faced with strength, with the prospect of defeat, and with the posibility of REAL punishment, they tow the line.

Tell me, from your own experience, how many people inside the system take advantage of the various voluntary mentoring or trade-study programs that are offered in the prison system? What percentage of the total population? And once they're out, how many work WITH their parole officers to REALLY help them get their lives together? And how many don't take any of the programs set up for them seriously?

I would argue (based on my much more limited experience) that very few people really take advantage of the in-jail programs that are set up to help them. And I think every con and ex-con would see POs as either someone to be tolerated, at best, or an enemy out to get him at worst.

The nice guy approach isn't working, Excon. The programs are in place, but nobody is using them. The system set up to 'rehabilitate' criminals is a dismal failure. So now it's time to try the old, tried and true method of imprisonment... the system that worked up until the 1960's when it was abandoned in favor of 'social engineering' and 'rights of the accused' that have been taken too far.

Like I said, it's not about vegeance. Its about forcing a change in the behavior of criminals by teaching them the penalties for their actions. Its about teaching responsibility: you do the crime, you do the time, and its hard time.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 05/12/04 2:31 pm:

Hello again, Elliot:

>>>The programs are in place, but nobody is using them. The system set up to 'rehabilitate' criminals is a dismal failure. So now it's time to try the old, tried and true method of imprisonment... the system that worked up until the 1960's when it was abandoned in favor of 'social engineering' and 'rights of the accused' that have been taken too far.<<<

No, Elliot, you’re out of touch. You’ve been listening to Rush again. Let me bring you into this century. There are no programs any more for anybody use. The idea of rehabilitation went out the window years ago. C’mon, Elliot. You don’t still think they’re still doing that liberal crap in the slam? They’re not – they’re not, and let me say it again, they’re not. Yes, in the 60’s it was give ‘em programs. But, since the 70’s it’s been take ‘em away. THERE ARE NONE LEFT.

Now let me tell you how it is. Your viewpoint – prison is there to inflict punishment – is the viewpoint of George Bush, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and every state correctional system in the country. It has been for quite some time.

Given that viewpoint, every single person who works in any prison in this country believes, and is supported by his administration, that it is his/her job/duty, and God given right to inflict that punishment. If not them, who? That’s what they think – and do.

Now, I want you to think about that for a minute.

With the full backing of his bosses, a prison guard now believes his job is, not to keep the peace, no. His job is to inflict punishment. Of course, since it isn’t written anywhere exactly what punishment he is to inflict, he invents his own brand of punishment. He might even call it softening them up. He certainly knows that in order to get ahead, he must demonstrate that he punishes.

When you consider the full ramifications of this type of thinking that is pervasive in every prison in this country, I think even you, will see the danger. And it has nothing to do with bleeding hearts. It has to do with your own security.

Please don’t again, mistake this for a complaint. It’s a report. So, it’s no surprise to me, that a soldier, who is prison guard in real life, would act the way did. That’s what happens when we consider what our charges did wrong, rather than what we must do right.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/12/04 3:24 pm:
>>>With the full backing of his bosses, a prison guard now believes his job is, not to keep the peace, no. His job is to inflict punishment. Of course, since it isn’t written anywhere exactly what punishment he is to inflict, he invents his own brand of punishment. He might even call it softening them up. He certainly knows that in order to get ahead, he must demonstrate that he punishes. <<<

Alright. So the answer is to codify what types of punishment can and cannot be meeted out by a prison guard on his own authority. But LIMITING his ability to punish is NOT the answer. Taking away the authority of the guards is not the answer. Decide what punishments a particular offense should warrant, make the punishments unpleasant and perhaps even painfull, and then allow the guards to summarily use those punishments for a particular offense. If you feel that there should be a formal review after the fact, fine. But prison SHOULD be about punishment... otherwise its a waste of time and tax dollars --- for the guards and for society and, in fact, for the prisoners as well.

By the way, as a side note, I understand that there is a technical difference betwen jail and prison. Can you explain it to me? My understanding is that it has to do with whether you have been sentenced or not, but a better explanation would be appreciated. This is a professional question, actually... I've been asked to make a loan to a company that services jails and prisons, and I need to understand it from a business perspective.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by chekhovToo on 05/12/04 7:29 pm:
ET - How is the geneva Convention being applied to prisoners held at the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay?

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/13/04 8:25 am:
Chekhov,

The prisoners at Guantanimo Bay are NOT being tortured (as defined in the GC), they are being given food, clothing, and shelter. Furthermore, they are being given materials needed to follow their religions (a requirement NOT required by the GC). They are provided medical care, and generally are living healthier than they did in Afghanistan. In other words, the GC is bein followed to the letter and beyond.

As for calling it a 'concentration camp', I suggest you read up on the REAL horrors of the Nazi concentration camps before making any kind of moral comparison between the USA's POW camps and the Nazi concentration camps. Ny family lived through the Nazi camps. My grandparents have numbers on their wrists, and miraculously survived Auschwitz. I KNOW what real concentration camps are like, and Guantanimo Bay doesn't fit the bill.

Here are 19 pictures of Auschwitz drawn by a survivor/witness.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/auschwitz/rozenstrauch.html

Granted, a drawn picture is never quite as striking as a photo, but I think you'll get the point. Guantanimo Bay doesn't even come close.

And here is some film footage from Nordhausen.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/nordhausen/Nordhausen.html

And here are descriptions of some of the horrific experiments performed on the 'guests' of the concentration camps.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/dachau/

So please, Mr. I'm Well Read And You're Not, don't try to stupidly argue that Guantanimo Bay is a 'concentration camp'. It's insulting and disgusting.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/13/04 9:09 am:
DARN THOSE BROKEN LINKS!!!

I can't figure out how to do links in HTML.

Just cut and paste the links to your browser's address bar.

Sorry about the inconvenience.

Elliot