A proper prison.

Ivan

marti101 wrote: »

I have seen this prison on Bravo.Its very interesting idea but would never work here we have to many bleeding heart liberals.Too interested in the rights of prisoners than the rights of the people they hurt.In the chaingang they do stuff like bury bodies that nobody claim,i remember there was a baby of a baby that nobody claimed so these prisoners had to bury it in a mass grave.Whatever you think jail should be a deterrent not a night at the ritz.I also think he has got it right ,any chance he could come over here and show us a few things.

I'd class myself as one of those limey, pinko, liberals and I for one am for it. He is satisfying basic human rights under the geneva convention and therefore is doing nothing wrong. I agree, that being in prison is meant to be tough. If you dont like it, dont break the law.

But you just keeping harping on about us bleeding heart liberals and we'll continue to ignore you.

Adam

Ivan wrote: »

I'd class myself as one of those limey, pinko, liberals and I for one am for it. He is satisfying basic human rights under the geneva convention and therefore is doing nothing wrong. I agree, that being in prison is meant to be tough. If you dont like it, dont break the law.

But you just keeping harping on about us bleeding heart liberals and we'll continue to ignore you.

I would also class myself as such, to a degree. I guess because I didn't state that outright it was automatically assumed not to be the case. I'm all for equal rights, fair treatment etc., I'm not a flaming racist, I don't hate gay people, so on and so forth.

But I'm also a very logically minded straight thinker by nature. For me it's very simple. If I committed a serious crime, I wouldn't expect anything less than a step above hell as punishment. I wouldn't like it, obviously, but if was guilty I would accept it in the end.

What annoys me is the people on here shouting about what a disgrace the sheriff is for his treatment of prisoners. Well to all of ye, stop harping on about how our idealogy of "give it to 'em and give it to 'em hard" will not work and doesn't "rehabilitate the criminal". Instead, why don't you tell us how it should be done? Because I can tell you, if I had to go to prison but knew I'd get cable tv/gym/consoles/other luxuries and might get a few years off my sentence for good behavior and could just sit on my arse all day with free meals and a bed, I wouldn't be as fearful of committing a crime as I probably should be.

ScumLord

KTRIC wrote: »

Prisoners loose a lot of their rights in many countries. They should be treated as property of the state when they get incarcerated. All rights should be removed, end of.

Agreed. You should be put in service of the state to work off your punishment. If you have qualifications they can be used.

I wouldn't be against shorter sentences for some crimes if the punishment was more severe. There should be some amount of rehabilitation. I really want to see more rehabilitation, not only so they're not completely useless when they come out but to teach them right from wrong. I want to see criminals feeling guilty for what they've done, you get the feeling a jail sentence is a holiday for them and they come out not knowing they've done something wrong.

Irishcrx

The people who commit the big crimes rape, murder, serious assault etc you never know what these people are thinking, for most of us on here we had a decent upbringing,morals, good meals, a house, an education , TV , a bed, clean clothes some people didn't so what if you had nothing. I mean rock bottom no house, no money, an addiction, slept on a bridge or in a run down camp, had to string together half eaten meals and scabs, was never thought right from wrong.

How much of a hate would you build up towards society, jealousy, people in general...now your far more likely to commit crimes and you wouldn't really care about prison cause it's probably better than what your facing outside anyway.

Adam

Irishcrx wrote: »

The people who commit the big crimes rape, murder, serious assault etc you never know what these people are thinking, for most of us on here we had a decent upbringing,morals, good meals, a house, an education , TV , a bed, clean clothes some people didn't so what if you had nothing. I mean rock bottom no house, no money, an addiction, slept on a bridge or in a run down camp, had to string together half eaten meals and scabs, was never thought right from wrong.

How much of a hate would you build up towards society, jealousy, people in general...now your far more likely to commit crimes and you wouldn't really care about prison cause it's probably better than what your facing outside anyway.

Kind of came full circle there didn't you? So if the prison system was more extreme, do you not think people would be less likely to commit crimes that might land them in said prison?

Dudess

I really doubt the sheriff is doing this for the good of society or other such nonsense.

Terry

Dudess wrote: »

Exactly. I read all this talk of "Oh de 'Joy is like a hotel" etc... Eh, it isn't. It's a scary as **** place to be.

You'd think that, but that inmates I spoke to didn't really believe it to be.

I was in a holding cell and they spoke of the place as if it was some sort of paradise.
The only thing they complained about was the fact that Kit Kats no longer have a foil wrapper and that the shop in Cloverhill wasn't as good as the one in the Joy.

They told me that the holding cell (which scared me shítless) was nothing like the Joy. That the Joy was "Fúcking great".

These guys didn't give a damn about going back there. It's an easy life for them.
They have access to drugs, TV, tobacco and three square meals a day.
There is no incentive for them to sort out their lives.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mirror wrote: »

Define rehabilitated?

Bottom line for me is not rehabilitation, but the likeliness to reoffend. That's as far as rehabilitation is going to get in any prison system I'd say. And as I outlined in my previous post, someone like me wouldn't knowingly commit a crime that would land me in prison for ten years. So I wouldn't need to be rehabilitated. I sure as sh1t wouldn't reoffend. So what do you expect we can do with people who knowingly commit serious crimes? Do you think we can rehabilitate them?

Rehabilitaed? Less likely to commit a crime, more respect for life and people around them. Prison does neither of these things.

Unfortunately the gentlefolk scumbags aren't all saints like you and me. Some of them do not give a **** and are immune to fear.

Do I think criminals can be rehabilited? Does it matter what I think? I mean, if they can be rehabilitated, I'd say do whatever you can while they're inside. It'll reduce the reoffending rate. If they can NOT be rehabilited, and I'd want this proven, then why should the be allowed to rejoin society?

Lockstep

Isn;t this the guy who only allowed postcards to be sent out with his face on them?

I think it's sick. Given the outrageously unfair American justice system, we should be immediately suspect what the hell is going on here. Tents? In the arizona sun? 20c meals? This is sick sick stuff.

The American prison population has skyrocketed in the past 30 years, in 1970, there were 20k people were in federal and state prisons. Since the implementation of the "three strikes and your out" policy meaning a 25-life for anyone convicted of a thrid felony has led to skyrocketing of prison populations.

The war in drugs is especially bad here, The Sentencing Project Group reports that 70% of those sentenced to state prisons in 1998 were convicted of non-violent crimes.

This baffles me, by treating prisoners in this manner they are losing the moral authority to condemn violaters of law. Yes prisoners should be treated harshly, no they shouldn't live in holiday camps but there is a limit and a middle ground ensuring a reasonable balance which ensures basic treatment of prisoners combined with a punishing regime for the crime they commited against society.


Also, anyone who thinks Newt Gringrich tells the truth when no Democrat does is deluded.

Adam

There are too many folk beating around the bush here imo.

If you disagree with the sheriffs methods (and I'm not saying I agree 100% with them myself), what way do you see the prison system working? What conditions/privilages should they be granted, if any??

Lockstep

I know I'm just an ignorant white boy but I'd say his methods are too extreme.

A couple of things I'd change: cut out the three strikes and you're out policy.
Horrendous.

Unsure as to how prevalent rape is in this prison but I'd allow prisoners to use hookers if they wanted, unsure as to the nuts and bolts but it'd help diffuse some of the tension methinks.


Seperate violent and non-violent offenders. The war on drugs is doing a lotta bad things there.


Cut out unnecessary luxurys, it'd depend on what's in question but PS2s is too far.

Food that is neither fancy nor subnutritional.


Abolish chaingangs (what is this, the 50s?)

Guy:Incognito

Earthhorse wrote: »

Interesting that the article doesn't mention anything about the effect on re-offending rates which is probably because it hasn't had any.

Who cares. If the results are the same as a standard prison thats fine, but it's costing a fraction of the amount of a normal prison soits a win win.

Oh and for the record, I dont care what hardship prisoners have to put up with inside. It's a prison.

Dudess

So was Abu Ghraib.

Guy:Incognito

Dudess wrote: »

So was Abu Ghraib.

clap clap. good arguement. when your against something, just chuck in a negative buzz word.

My point still stands. We are spending hundreds of millions on superprisons with far better ameneties (I've seen the plans) than what most of us pay good money to use on the outside. It should not cost multiples of my yearly salary to house a prison for a year.

Lockstep

Stekelly wrote: »

clap clap. good arguement. when your against something, just chuck in a negative buzz word.

My point still stands. We are spending hundreds of millions on superprisons with far better ameneties (I've seen the plans) than what most of us pay good money to use on the outside. It should not cost multiples of my yearly salary to house a prison for a year.

Dudess made a valid point, regardless of whether you view it as a buzzword or not.

There is a difference between being against this particular prison and being for luxury prisons.

Yes it should not be a holiday camp but I'd view the camp conditions here as too harsh.

Earthhorse

Stekelly wrote: »

Who cares. If the results are the same as a standard prison thats fine, but it's costing a fraction of the amount of a normal prison soits a win win.

I do. And the people claiming that it would reduce recidivism, I imagine they do to.

Keeping costs down is fine as long as basic rights are maintained and we aren't sadistic or opening up systems to abuse.

Stekelly wrote: »

Oh and for the record, I dont care what hardship prisoners have to put up with inside. It's a prison.

Bully for you.

Adam

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Dudess made a valid point, regardless of whether you view it as a buzzword or not.

There is a difference between being against this particular prison and being for luxury prisons.

Yes it should not be a holiday camp but I'd view the camp conditions here as too harsh.

Free hookers?! Lock me up and throw away the key!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Stekelly wrote: »

clap clap. good arguement. when your against something, just chuck in a negative buzz word.

My point still stands. We are spending hundreds of millions on superprisons with far better ameneties (I've seen the plans) than what most of us pay good money to use on the outside. It should not cost multiples of my yearly salary to house a prison for a year.

Here, I would agree. Basic human rights observed, and that's it. Telly, playstaions, kitkats are NOT basic human rights.

Mirror wrote: »

There are too many folk beating around the bush here imo.

If you disagree with the sheriffs methods (and I'm not saying I agree 100% with them myself), what way do you see the prison system working? What conditions/privilages should they be granted, if any??

I did. Post #26. See Below.

"Anyway, we've been through this before. Hit the teenager scumbag-wannabes beforethey become 20s-scumbags proper. Give them some to do that'll keep them off the streets before they're ON The streets."

However, I also said that this option doesn't appeal because it requires a) A little effort and b) no violence.

Adam

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Here, I would agree. Basic human rights observed, and that's it. Telly, playstaions, kitkats are NOT basic human rights.



I did. Post #26. See Below.

"Anyway, we've been through this before. Hit the teenager scumbag-wannabes beforethey become 20s-scumbags proper. Give them some to do that'll keep them off the streets before they're ON The streets."

However, I also said that this option doesn't appeal because it requires a) A little effort and b) no violence.

No, that option appeals to me 100%, I completely agree. But that's not what I asked for. I asked what way you think the prison system should work, not what to do to prevent people ending up in the prison system.

Lockstep

Mirror wrote: »

Free hookers?! Lock me up and throw away the key!

I wouldn't say free. If they wish to use what little money they get on hookers then they're welcome to. I'd implement it to see if rape rates decrease (rape in prison often being an issue of power, but if they cons are all jizzed out and offered the chance to screw a woman rather than some skinny 16 year old lad it might help), if no changes occurred, then I'd scrap it.

Worth a try.

Adam

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I wouldn't say free. If they wish to use what little money they get on hookers then they're welcome to. I'd implement it to see if rape rates decrease (rape in prison often being an issue of power, but if they cons are all jizzed out and offered the chance to screw a woman rather than some skinny 16 year old lad it might help), if no changes occurred, then I'd scrap it.

Worth a try.

And where would you find these lowly hookers?

MissHoneyBun

cornbb wrote: »

If we are to set about stripping people of their human rights or dignity, or imposing cruel/unusual punishment, perhaps the punishment should be put into perspective alongside the crime that has actually been committed. Run along with your pitchforks now.

+1
Definitely agree

Lockstep

Las Vegas?

I'd encourage conjugal visits first of all, but otherwise I'd let the inmates do the deed themselves (given that often prisoners try to pass off a hooker as a partner in conjugal visits), they're welcome to seek the hooker and pay for her. Ultimately, it's their dime.

luckat

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Unsure as to how prevalent rape is in this prison but I'd allow prisoners to use hookers if they wanted, unsure as to the nuts and bolts but it'd help diffuse some of the tension methinks.

</gawp>

Adam

luckat wrote: »

</gawp>

+1

I'm not even going to argue... -_-

Lockstep

Mirror wrote: »

+1

I'm not even going to argue... -_-

Whyever not? I'd be happy to debate the point, keep in mind it's just an idea I have as an experiment to reduce prison rape rates.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mirror wrote: »

No, that option appeals to me 100%, I completely agree. But that's not what I asked for. I asked what way you think the prison system should work, not what to do to prevent people ending up in the prison system.

Answered in the post you replied to: basic human rights and that's it. Beyond that, it depends entirely on what you want it to do. I think you were one of the poeple who said you wanted it to punish, not to rehabilitate. It needs to concentrate on both: ignoring either will result in failure.

I'm all for the hookers idea, provided said hookers are over 60, fat and ugly. First one saying "your ma" gets a 3-shag sentence (one shag suspended, if good behaveiour is observed).

Wertz

The guy's a state sanctioned sadist...plays well to all the conservative middle class both in his own country and over here it would seem.

I'll be the first to agree that our prison system is a mess, is the opposite to being an effective deterrent and that most inmates have far too handy a time, but at the bottom of it all, these f*ckers are still human.....if you're going to treat them like this for a sizable proportion of their lives, then you may as well just line them up against a wall and put them out of their misery.
I have nothing against the removal of luxuries, even basic ones....but playing political audio documentaries? 126o F in a tent? Sorry but I draw the line at forced labour (which I am entirely in agreement with), I don't condone torture, which is what a lot of this guy's actions amount to...

Lockstep

I don't mean good looking hookers! What is this, France?


The odd woman just to stick your winky into to reduce violence rates is more my line of thinking.

Adam

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Whyever not? I'd be happy to debate the point, keep in mind it's just an idea I have as an experiment to reduce prison rape rates.

Fine. Some questions:

1. Prostitution is illegal in this country, should it be legalised for prisoners?
2. Which prisoners get the privilage?
3. What happens when one of them get's beaten? Threatened with her life with a promise that if she squeals on the convict he has friends on the outside that will hunt her down?
4. What kind of social situation do you think hookers that are willing to degrade themselves like this would be in to begin with?
5. What will it subsequently do for the hookers life?
6. Are you going to cavity search every hooker to prevent drug running via their orifices?
7. What happens when the convict runs out of cash two years in to a fifteen year sentence?

I could go on...