Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2011 17:29:20 GMT -5
Why do we insist upon incarcerating so many people whollyu unnecessarily?
Is prison really the best way to deal with criminal behaviour?
The sad reality is that it is totally inefffective.
Let us consider those, for instance, who are serving genuine whole life terms.
What kind of incentive do they have NOT to commit other crimes? If they are doomed to remain in prison for ever no matter what they do why should they not simply cause mayhem?
Or if a prisoner knows that he or she will be released then it is abundantly clear that their crime was not one that made them sufficiently dangerous to lock them up for the whole of their life.
That being the case, non-custodial sentences would be a better way of dealing with them.
I am going to post a link in a moment as a follow-up to this post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2011 17:30:26 GMT -5
Here is the article I promised: ezinearticles.com/?Do-We-Really-Need-Prisons?&id=1018297Do We Really Need Prisons? By Scott Hughes Millions of people in the world currently rot in jails or prisons. People think of jails and prisons as an essential part of society, but do we really need them? Do prisons really protect people from violence and victimization, or do prisons just make matters worse? Let's look at the different types of criminals that governments throw in prison. Non-violent non-victimizers - Governments have a tendency to criminalize behaviors that do not hurt anyone. The governments create victimless crimes by creating authoritarian laws. When people break these laws, they have not hurt anyone in any major way. These laws can include any laws outlawing victimless behaviors, such as drug possession, prostitution, peacefully practicing a religion, and so on and so forth. For example, the United States currently has over 1 million people behind bars for victimless crimes, which only limits freedom and does not protect others. Instead of putting these non-violent people in jail or prison, we can just let them go and legalize all victimless behaviors. It makes more sense to let people have freedom than to waste resources enforcing authoritarian laws. Incidental Criminals - Some people may commit an illegal act of violence or victimization due to external conditions. We can refer to these people as incidental criminals. These 'incidental criminals' do not have any more of a tendency to hurt others than the average person. For example, consider someone who has to steal to feed his family one day. Almost anyone would do that, so it does not mean we need to throw the person in jail or prison. If we can change the conditions that cause a normal person to a commit a crime, then we can do that rather than brutally lock a person in a cell. We have no need to throw a person in jail or prison if they pose no more danger than the average person but committed a one-time crime due to external circumstances. Mentally Sick People - Finally, we have sick people. These people have some sort of mental defect that makes them a danger to other people. If we do not restrain these people, they will victimize other people. So we must restrain them. But why put them in jail or prison? They need treatment, and prison will not cure them; it will just torture them. If we put them in jail or prison, then we can never let them out because jail or prison will not cure them. If we put them into a treatment facility, then we may successfully treat or cure some of them, at which point we can safely release those ones back into society. We will protect more people by putting mentally sick people into treatment centers (including insane asylums), then by throwing them in jail or prison. These people need professional care in a medical establishment, not the punishment of prison. I think most people feel like me in that I would prefer to protect people and to do it in as least brutal a way as possible. I have no interest in using the force of government to pointlessly get vengeance or inflict punishment using prisons. Thus, I see no need for prisons. We can release people who have no psychological defect that makes them dangerous, and we can put the ones with psychological defects in treatment. Let's base our policies on sympathy, understanding, and a desire to protect people. Let's not base policy on a wasteful indulgence in state-sanctioned vengeance. Scott Hughes manages the Philosophy Forums, which contain a Philosophy of Politics Forum. You can use the forums to discuss topics such as this and more. Article Source: EzineArticles.com/?expert=Scott_Hughes |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 14, 2011 2:24:53 GMT -5
we need some prisons,,,but what we really need is a better system....
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulman on Aug 14, 2011 12:30:51 GMT -5
A better system until then more prisons. Criminals know the jails are full and prisoners are being let out early. This lot could do with a spell in HM's finest instead of preaching.
Can you imagine working for a company that only has a little more than 635 employees, but, has the following employee statistics...
*29 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
9 have been accused of writing bad cheques
17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year
*
And collectively, this year alone, they have cost the British tax payer
£92,993,748 in expenses!!!
Which organisation is this?
It's the 635 members of the House of Commons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2011 19:13:50 GMT -5
So are you suggesting they should simply be locked up and sent to prison?
And what would you replace the institution with?
|
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 15, 2011 1:56:41 GMT -5
i would fill the institution with honest men...there must be honest people somewhere
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2011 7:50:22 GMT -5
So are you suggesting they should simply be locked up and sent to prison? And what would you replace the institution with? I suppose you COULD simply relocate them to people's houses, where they could sleep on the couch and help keep the place clean. But does ANY punishment work? Hanging doesn't work - we've hanged people for 5,000 years to show people that killing people is wrong - and yet people still kill people - where hanging is practiced. Monetary fines don't work - the wealthy aren't bothered and the poor can't pay them. Public humiliation MIGHT work - it seems to, in Singapore, with public bare-butted caning. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2011 7:58:12 GMT -5
A better system until then more prisons. Criminals know the jails are full and prisoners are being let out early. This lot could do with a spell in HM's finest instead of preaching. Can you imagine working for a company that only has a little more than 635 employees, but, has the following employee statistics... *29 have been accused of spouse abuse 7 have been arrested for fraud 9 have been accused of writing bad cheques 17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses 3 have done time for assault 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges 8 have been arrested for shoplifting 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits 84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year * And collectively, this year alone, they have cost the British tax payer £92,993,748 in expenses!!! Which organisation is this? It's the 635 members of the House of Commons. We had much the same thing posted about the US Congress. There is a Democrat congressman of long standing, named Alcee Hastings (H, FL). Hastings once was a Federal judge, who was caught taking bribes; then impeached, tried, and convicted. His attorney's license was revoked, so that he can no longer practice law. Apparently he fit right in with the Democrats value set, because, he was then promptly elected (and continuously re-elected) to the House of Representatives, where he MAKES the laws. I think the people themselves (on both sides of the pond) need to grasp the basics of common sense. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 15, 2011 8:49:38 GMT -5
singapore certainly does work with its punishment regime and no idiots wittering on about human rights....and what a safe clean well run country it is too
NO ONE who had violated any one elses human rights should be entitled to not being taken of their human rights
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2011 19:06:43 GMT -5
At the same time that the government was closing Kelly Air Force Base, we were (as usual) in need of more space at the local County jail.
It was suggested that we securely fence off the Kelly barracks and give them over to less-dangerous prisoners.
Couldn't do it; we couldn't require prisoners to live under such miserable conditions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 17, 2011 2:28:00 GMT -5
have been thinking about this is there any crime which doesnt have a victim..  and instead of talking about crime...how about EXPECTING people NOT to be CRIMINALS every person who dpes NOT buy a tv licence.. makes it more expensive for those who do every one who doesnt pay road tax..imposes on those who do every false claim on insurence..ups the price for those who do buy every one who doesnt pay their community charge leeches off those who do one could argue that none of these things should be charged for in the first place...but its a false argument in that we have to deal with things as they are and with the laws which are in place |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 17, 2011 2:33:31 GMT -5
Why do we insist upon incarcerating so many people whollyu unnecessarily? Is prison really the best way to deal with criminal behaviour? The sad reality is that it is totally inefffective. Let us consider those, for instance, who are serving genuine whole life terms. What kind of incentive do they have NOT to commit other crimes? If they are doomed to remain in prison for ever no matter what they do why should they not simply cause mayhem? Or if a prisoner knows that he or she will be released then it is abundantly clear that their crime was not one that made them sufficiently dangerous to lock them up for the whole of their life. That being the case, non-custodial sentences would be a better way of dealing with them. the real sad reality is that they committed criminal acts in the first place... though i would like to see many more punishment fitting the crime sentences..of course then you come up against human rights and health and safety.. i would also be in favour for existing prisons to be a stricter regime |
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 7, 2011 11:47:44 GMT -5
Why do we insist upon incarcerating so many people whollyu unnecessarily? Is prison really the best way to deal with criminal behaviour? The sad reality is that it is totally inefffective. Let us consider those, for instance, who are serving genuine whole life terms. What kind of incentive do they have NOT to commit other crimes? If they are doomed to remain in prison for ever no matter what they do why should they not simply cause mayhem? Or if a prisoner knows that he or she will be released then it is abundantly clear that their crime was not one that made them sufficiently dangerous to lock them up for the whole of their life. That being the case, non-custodial sentences would be a better way of dealing with them. I am going to post a link in a moment as a follow-up to this post. You made a very good point Mike. Incarcerating a felon after his conviction is fruitless, because the crime is already committed. The trick to this, is to prevent the crime in the first place. A person serving prison time for any crime does not think about what got him there. Once in prison, his primary goal is survival, and adjustment to a life of incarceration. Maybe chopping off an arm or a leg might serve as a better punishment or deterrent, and of course, killing him would ensure that he will never commit another crime again. Maybe we should put these criminals into the homes of those who sympathize with them, with the condition that they never leave the property. AK |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 12:00:55 GMT -5
Some things to consider . . .
From the area around Houston all the way deep into Florida is an interstate highway, stretching for miles through alligator and water moccasin infested swamp. It rises on concrete pillars and earthen "burms", set deep into the swamp muck. It was built by CONVICT labor - after all, SOMEBODY had to wade out into the muck to do the work.
During the war years (WW II) the Orange County Prison Farm (Florida) was just that - a farm. The convicts raised their own food and fibre; they raised, harvested, spun, and wove cotton into bed sheets, mattress covers, laundry bags - for not only themselves: They also "donated" considerably to hospitals and orphanages. And, of course, they did the "grunt" work of maintaining the prison (AND state-wide roadways).
This was no drain on the taxpayers; in fact, the County made considerable profit. But that was then - not now.
We need to return to common sense.
There is no sense whatsoever in sentencing someone to 5 years in prison when you know full well he'll be out in 1. Give him an honest 1 year sentence - and NO time off for good behavior. Add time, for BAD behavior.
That way, ten years will mean (at least) TEN YEARS - giving would-be criminals something to think about.
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 7, 2011 13:37:05 GMT -5
Why do we insist upon incarcerating so many people whollyu unnecessarily? Is prison really the best way to deal with criminal behaviour? The sad reality is that it is totally inefffective. Let us consider those, for instance, who are serving genuine whole life terms. What kind of incentive do they have NOT to commit other crimes? If they are doomed to remain in prison for ever no matter what they do why should they not simply cause mayhem? Or if a prisoner knows that he or she will be released then it is abundantly clear that their crime was not one that made them sufficiently dangerous to lock them up for the whole of their life. That being the case, non-custodial sentences would be a better way of dealing with them. I am going to post a link in a moment as a follow-up to this post. Hi Mike... The basic problem here, is that prisons, like executions, are seen as simply "vengence" actions. When they are looked upon as tools to defend the public, which IMHO is what they are.... then they become totally understandable & indespensible. If a prisoner causes "meyhem" in prison.....then go to plan #2....execute him, or her. Turning them loose on the innocent public, HAS been tried....with obvious, and horrific results. |
|
