The Prison System

[skyward]

Tortured & Enslaved: Enter the World's Biggest Prison
Sep 19, 2015


How is this allowed to go on?

By comparison some of the prison systems in Europe are quite 'soft' (I'm thinking of the Scandinavian countries). Have these become too soft, or are they on the right track?

Another interesting doentary to watch is
Louis Theroux's A Place for Paedophiles [Produced in 2009]


It's noteworthy that the prisoners are nearly all white, well-educated, middle-class men. Their crimes are so utterly reprehensible and yet they are afforded a very high level of comfort, bordering on being pampered.

Is this... justice?

 

[Otage]

Justice and laws quite often have very little to do with each others.

 

[ihno]

Thank you. I hope this gets many clicks.

Yes, the US governments have long lost any credibility to talk about human rights. It's like blind people talking about colours.

 

[gb2000ie]

What is the most important purpose of the prison system?
Is it to extract retribution from those who have done wrong?
Or is it to protect society from those who would do wrong?

Should there not also be a third aim - rehabilitation?

I'd say a good prison system should serve all of the above aims - bad choices should have consequences, people should get a chance to re-make themselves into productive members of society while they serve their time, and, if people don't take their chance at reform, then society needs to be protected from them.

People become what you treat them like - so if you treat people like shit - they will become shit.

Being deprived of liberty is one heck of a punishment, there is no need to throw cruel and unusual punishments into the mix.

Finally - a society that runs it's prison system for profit is a sick society chock-full of perverse incentives. Welcome to America!

B.

 

[skyward]

It's important to note that when discussing any large prison system, we are talking about a complex system, with flaws, perhaps many flaws, but with strengths too. There may be some particularly nasty prison guards and wardens, but perhaps many of them are very fine people who do the best job they can, within the constraints of a flawed system.

One fact that has yet to be mentioned is the right to bear arms. How does this impact crime and by extension the prison system?

Will Americans ever give up this right? If the right is, as some argue, a necessary protection against the power of government then the more corrupt the government is, the less likely people will be to forego their right to bear arms. Even if all these arms are creating problems. So that could be a kind of vicious circle, if you follow my meaning.

I can't see them ever even trying to remove the right to bear arms. :/ Just listen to this:



Even so, guns are certainly banned within the prison system (from the point of view of prisoners), so the prevalence of arms on the outside can never justify abuses on the inside. And in general the problem of a well-armed citizenry, should be managed in the fairest,most reasonable & least reactionary way possible. Not an easy task, but there you have it.

 

[skyward]

And in relation to the Louis Theroux doentary, I think he tries to be objective but the implication is there that the relative high-luxury is obscene, considering the predatory, ruthless nature of many of the pedophiles.

However, as dargelos mentioned the main thing is that they are kept away from children. So at least that's being achieved.

This brings to mind the major scandal over a pedophile ring in Belgium. The states appalling behaviour actually brought hundreds of thousands out onto the street in protest. And this is in a country with quite a small population! The sense I get is that the most vile pedophiles were being protected by certain state agencies because of their high-status in Belgian society. They are protected to this day? Some of our Belgian members might know more but here is a truly chilling BBC doentary about it:



Sometimes you think that if enough people protest then even the most corrupt system must respond and reform itself. But in Belgium even the astonishing scale of the protest marches were not enough. The judge who tried to order the arrest of all the high-level pedophiles, had to be put into a bullet-proof car. He felt his life was is such jeopardy I think he just gave up (was replaced by a judge willing to look the other way). When questioned later describing the pressure he was under, he actually broke down emotionally. If they can do that to an experienced judge, what can't they do? As the saying goes, 'power corrupts...'

So corruption and horrific abuses of power can happen in Europe too. I also feel that pedophiles get off far too light in some EU countries. Sometimes they go to court but just get suspended sentences. So it's not fair to pile all criticism on the USA.

 

[xenos]

The current climate in the U. S. regarding crime has been inflamed over the years by hysterical propaganda.

Look at the local news programs. The mantra of local news is "if it bleeds it leads." They feature many stories about crime to exclusion of more important and intelligent stories that are not visually "sexy" like crime reports. Think of all those local news shows with film of police raids, dozens of cop cars with sexy red lights flashing, crime scene tape across streets blocked off by police. As a result the majority of American think that crime is out of control in this county, especially crime committed by blacks and Hispanics. (Listen to Donald Trump of you don't think this true.)

The public reacted with an attitude of, "If they weren't guilty they wouldn't be in jail." Did you ever see a local news story about the underlying reasons for crime caused by social conditions? No, that would require thought, intelligence and compassion. Virtues that are in short supply among news anchors and their producers.

In addition, since the 1960s the news has trumpeted thousands of stories about the war on drugs. The Federal Government has been spending millions promoting its losing battle against drugs for decades. The result was the reclassification of many drug possession crimes as felonies rather than misdemeanors. Along with this came harsh mandatory sentencing laws even for a first offense. And prison populations rose dramatically.

Perhaps even more tragic is the fate of the mentally ill. Los Angeles County Jail is said to be the country's largest mental institution. The great Republican saint Ronald Reagan closed almost all of California's mental hospitals in favor of community clinics when he was Governor of California. Not a single clinic was ever opened under Reagan. As a result the number of homeless mentally ill has skyrocketed. The question became, "What do we do with people with mental problems who act out?" The answer became, " Throw them in the clink and get them off the streets so they are not harassing regular people." Now they are held for a minimum amount of time and dumped back on the streets with predictable results.

I believe that jails and prisons are inherently unjust, brutal and corrupting to the inmates and their jailers. They are an indictment of America's failure to deal with social problems that promote criminal behavior and the people who run afoul of the law.

Saddest of all, I don't see any hope that things will improve in the near future.
:angry::angry::angry:

 

[brmstn69]

A lot of people I talk to about prison reform think I'm completely nuts because I actually advocate for a system like Norway's "luxury prisons". While I think it's crazy some of the perks they are allowed, you can't argue with the facts. The re-offender rate in Norway is a mere 15% vs. the 45-50% re-offender rate in the US. Why? Because they actually work towards rehabilitating criminals, not punishing them.

The problem with America's prison system is that it's privatized. It has become big business, and like any business their profit base is in repeat customers...

 

[gb2000ie]

Rehabilitation matters too, as does deterence, but not to all prisoners. Only the guilty.

A great point!

A lot of the cells contain people who have commited no real crime. Some need to be in hospital but mental health is so underfunded that prison is the only place that will take new cases. It is that which is the crime. It's hard to imagine a worse environment in which to place someone who is suffering a nervous breakdown than a crowded threatening prison.

I totally agree - talk about 'cruel and unusual punishment'

Other inmates are only there because they were not rich. It costs a lot to hire a good lawyer, more than most can afford. A good one can fight back against malicious prosecution, lying witnesses, lying policemen, mistaken identity, even honest mistakes. Without one, the other side could get The Virgin Mary locked up.

Also very true.

Then there those crimes which are not crimes at all. It's only fifty years since the UK stopped locking us up for being queer, in many parts of the world that still happens. Today they can put you away because the govt takes a dislike to something you wrote on twitter. There are states in America I believe where it is an offence merely to be homeless.
Most countries could release half of their inmates overnight without the slightest risk to public safety. Other countries a lot more than half.

Indeed - the problems are much deeper than just the prison system - the entire justice system needs reform in most nations, including supposedly advanced ones.

No human institution will ever be perfect, but that doesn't mean we should stop striving for that kind of perfection. There should be no difference between the outcomes from the justice system and actual justice, but alas there very often is

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

A lot of people I talk to about prison reform think I'm completely nuts because I actually advocate for a system like Norway's "luxury prisons". While I think it's crazy some of the perks they are allowed, you can't argue with the facts. The re-offender rate in Norway is a mere 15% vs. the 45-50% re-offender rate in the US. Why? Because they actually work towards rehabilitating criminals, not punishing them.

The problem with America's prison system is that it's privatized. It has become big business, and like any business their profit base is in repeat customers...

Thanks for the very interesting statistics - ultimately, if the aim is to make society safer, then you have to do what works, not what feels good!

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

The current climate in the U. S. regarding crime has been inflamed over the years by hysterical propaganda.

Indeed - fear of crime keeps going up, but actual crime continues it's decades-long decline. America today is a much safer place than America in 1965, but the media has ensured that people FEEL less safe than they did in 1965, so they can be frightened into voting for insane policies like the war on drugs. (has the lesson of the prohibition fiasco been so quickly forgotten?)

B.

 

[skyward]

if the aim is to make society safer, then you have to do what works, not what feels good!

B.

I 99% agree.

Some crimes cause so much irreversible damage to the victim, that even if the perpetrator is deemed 'no longer a threat to society', it would still be highly inappropriate to release them, depending of course on the specific case.

You have to look at things from the perspective of the perpetrator, from the perspective of society, but also from the perspective of victims.

Imagine being raped as a child, and the perpetrator get's released after only a few years. Many victims of such crimes are so deeply and permanently scarred they develop split-personality. It's a very real and profound injury. Sadly, this can be used in court to weaken their testimony. The word for that is victimisation.

Or just recently there was a case of two thugs in the UK who, wearing bandanas, threw 200ml of acid into a woman's face. The attack was obviously planned. Witnesses said she screamed she could not see, could not open her eyes as "her face melted off", "she then started hyper-ventilating" "it was awful".

So while someone should not have their life ruined for nicking an apple, there are some crimes where I really do feel 'throw away the key' is the appropriate and indeed the most rational response.

 

[gb2000ie]

I 99% agree.

Some crimes cause so much irreversible damage to the victim, that even if the perpetrator is deemed 'no longer a threat to society', it would still be highly inappropriate to release them, depending of course on the specific case.

You have to look at things from the perspective of the perpetrator, from the perspective of society, but also from the perspective of victims.

I did say that all three aims should matter though - cause and effect, the chance of redemption by taking up opportunities for self-improvement while in prison, and then protection of society from people who refuse to reform.

So while someone should not have their life ruined for nicking an apple, there are some crimes where I really do feel 'throw away the key' is the appropriate and indeed the most rational response.

I don't think there should ever be an automatic 'throw away the key' situation. Imprisonment for ever is a very long time! After 20, 30, 40, or 50 years there has to be the opportunity to redeem yourself!

Also - many people who commit terrible crimes are themselves mentally damaged by something horrible that happened to them.

Very rarely are things as simple as "he's good, and he's evil" - reality has an annoying habit of being much much greyer than that.

B.

 

[skyward]

I don't think there should ever be an automatic 'throw away the key' situation

Glad that you include 'automatic' here.

Such a situation should never happen automatically, i.e there should always be due process, and in serious cases trial by jury. In this way, cases where there is a life sentence can be said to be not just appropriate, but also rational.

 

[gb2000ie]

Glad that you include 'automatic' here.

Such a situation should never happen automatically, i.e there should always be due process, and in serious cases trial by jury. In this way, cases where there is a life sentence can be said to be not just appropriate, but also rational.

To be more specific, what I meant was that it should not be possible to put someone away for ever at trial time. It should be possible for someone to spend decades and decades in prison, but there should also be opportunities for review, perhaps after the first 20 years, or every decade, or something.

B.

 

[skyward]

To be more specific, what I meant was that it should not be possible to put someone away for ever at trial time. It should be possible for someone to spend decades and decades in prison, but there should also be opportunities for review, perhaps after the first 20 years, or every decade, or something.

B.

The option of review should not always be automatic, though. If the judge, following the verdict of the jury, decides to rule out review, they this can be reasonable. He may feel the composition of a review board, or its leanings etc. is unknowable, and that there is no guarantee they will not be excessively lenient. If the crime is serious enough, that is, per the views of judge & jury.

 

[gb2000ie]

The option of review should not always be automatic, though. If the judge, following the verdict of the jury, decides to rule out review, they this can be reasonable. He may feel the composition of a review board, or its leanings etc. is unknowable, and that there is no guarantee they will not be excessively lenient. If the crime is serious enough, that is, per the views of judge & jury.

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

I don't think any judge should be able to put their ordained punishment above re-evaluation a decade or two out. No on can know what the situation will be that far out, hence, no one can know what the right thing to do then will be! Also, judges should have faith in the justice system they are a part of.

B.

 

[skyward]

I don't think any judge should be able to put their ordained punishment above re-evaluation a decade or two out. No on can know what the situation will be that far out, hence, no one can know what the right thing to do then will be! Also, judges should have faith in the justice system they are a part of.

B.

Not sure why the phrase 'ordained punishment'. If a review board fails to release a prisoner then you could also speak in similar terms of them.

Again, the balance of power has to favour the judge & jury operating in the context of a full trial. A review board might not deliver the same degree of impartiality, and should not automatically have power to reduce sentences.

Another option is sentences being appealed to a higher court. There are many cases where a prisoner is still appealing decades later... so there always flexibility in that sense.

When dealing with the most severe and dangerous criminals, I would prefer less than ideal flexibility, over too much flexibility. It does however depend on the individual case, oftentimes review boards are entirely appropriate, just not always.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Good idea, let some others have their say. :rofl:

 

[skyward]

If you have just raped someone and you know you will get automatic life there is no reason for you to stop at rape. Why not kill her/him... You could keep going, kill again and again

All true, but at some point along the way a life sentence maybe appropriate?

Dogwhistle sentencing, based on public opinion instead, creates dangerous, perverse incentives

Public opinion is often varied. Some will feel a stronger sentence is in order, others will fell a lighter sentence is best. Who is to say which is best? Best answer: judge & jury.

 

[brmstn69]

Anders Breivik is a one off, at least we all hope so. It is hard to imagine any kind of punishment which could have detered him from carrying out the mass murder that he had carefully planned. It is impossible to concieve of any kind of punishment that would be severe enough to give the level of suffering that his crimes deserve.

Cut off his arms and legs, pluck out his eyes, rupture his eardrums, and crush his voice box leaving him blind, deaf, mute, and trapped in a helpless body with nothing but the thoughts of his own shattered mind to keep him company for the rest of his natural life...:devil: