The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.

America's Prison Industrial Complex: Man finally released after 43 years in solitary

1356712

Posts

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited November 2013
    It is also far easier to dehumanize criminals in order to justify locking them up for increasingly lengthy periods of time than it is to address the real underlying issues and complex motivators that drive many criminals to commit crimes.

    joshofalltrades on
  • jhffmnjhffmn Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Lawndart wrote: »
    So then why do other industrialized nations with more "prisoner-friendly policies" not have much higher crime rates than the United States?

    Direct comparisons to the US are only useful if the nations are culturally and demographically similar. That's why I always laugh when people pull Norway out of their ass in these arguments. The country has less people than Minnesota in it.

    jhffmn on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    And Canada doesn't count because?

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    I'm just going to take all these cancer cells right here and, nope we're not going to make any attempt to cure them or fix them in any way, we're just going to sew them up in a sack inside your body and call it a day, they'll fix themselves over time. Now after about ten or twenty years that sack will probably release some of them back into your body because they served their time and can't possibly still be a cancer cell. They'll go back to where they were before and pick up right where they left off and you'll be all the better for it.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    I never understood the argument about the culture difference. Culture can be changed, especially with government backing.

  • jhffmnjhffmn Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    It is also far easier to dehumanize criminals in order to justify locking them up for increasingly lengthy periods of time than it is to address to real underlying issues and complex motivators that drive many criminals to commit crimes.

    Its more dehumanizing to blame underlying issues for the actions of an adult than to lock them up.

    I think a world view that assumes free will and demands responsibility for ones actions is far more humane than reducing people to a pile of underlying issues.

    jhffmn on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    jhffmn wrote: »
    It is also far easier to dehumanize criminals in order to justify locking them up for increasingly lengthy periods of time than it is to address to real underlying issues and complex motivators that drive many criminals to commit crimes.

    Its more dehumanizing to blame underlying issues for the actions of an adult than to lock them up.

    Damn it, I'm not getting into a free will argument.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    I never understood the argument about the culture difference. Culture can be changed, especially with government backing.

    This, and the thing that happens in these threads where there is no other country in the world that compares appropriately to the USA. It's tantamount to saying that it's impossible to convince the person claiming that the US is wholly unique and in a situation impossible to compare to other countries, which is fine I guess. It basically means I can stop wasting my own time.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    jhffmn wrote: »
    It is also far easier to dehumanize criminals in order to justify locking them up for increasingly lengthy periods of time than it is to address to real underlying issues and complex motivators that drive many criminals to commit crimes.

    Its more dehumanizing to blame underlying issues for the actions of an adult than to lock them up.

    What.

    Seriously, what?

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    He's trying to say it shouldn't matter what their situation is they should follow the law or do hard time because they're adults and should know better.


    It's a pretty stupid argument.

  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    our prison system is the new jim crow. how do you disenfranchise blacks? make laws that incarcerate them at much higher rates than any other ethnicity, then throw them somewhere that strips them of their rights.

    then we make them do farm work on top of that. I don't know what that sounds like to you, but I know what it sounds like to me.

  • jhffmnjhffmn Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    He's trying to say it shouldn't matter what their situation is they should follow the law or do hard time because they're adults and should know better.


    It's a pretty stupid argument.

    We do have a pretty awesome system in place to consider mitigating circumstances already called trial by jury.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    jhffmn wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    He's trying to say it shouldn't matter what their situation is they should follow the law or do hard time because they're adults and should know better.


    It's a pretty stupid argument.

    We do have a pretty awesome system in place to consider mitigating circumstances already called trial by jury.

    That's -adorable.-



  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    jhffmn wrote: »
    Its more dehumanizing to blame underlying issues for the actions of an adult than to lock them up.

    No, it's not.

    Also, you seem to now be assuming that "prison reform" means "never throw anyone in prison, ever".

    I am still curious if you honestly believe that any reforms that could be interpreted as being "prisoner friendly" will cause an increase in crime rates.

  • jhffmnjhffmn Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    I'm just going to take all these cancer cells right here and, nope we're not going to make any attempt to cure them or fix them in any way, we're just going to sew them up in a sack inside your body and call it a day, they'll fix themselves over time. Now after about ten or twenty years that sack will probably release some of them back into your body because they served their time and can't possibly still be a cancer cell. They'll go back to where they were before and pick up right where they left off and you'll be all the better for it.

    We are actually arguing whether to remove the tumor from society or to try and teach a cancer cell to behave.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    jhffmn wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    I'm just going to take all these cancer cells right here and, nope we're not going to make any attempt to cure them or fix them in any way, we're just going to sew them up in a sack inside your body and call it a day, they'll fix themselves over time. Now after about ten or twenty years that sack will probably release some of them back into your body because they served their time and can't possibly still be a cancer cell. They'll go back to where they were before and pick up right where they left off and you'll be all the better for it.

    We are actually arguing whether to remove the tumor from society or to try and teach a cancer cell to behave.

    Except that not everyone in prison is a "tumor" or a "cancer cell", as much as dehumanizing rhetoric makes it easier for you to accept any injustices in our current prison system.

    But then again, you're assuming that removing convicted criminals from society inherently conflicts with the concept of rehabilitation, which it very much doesn't, at all.

    Especially since non-violent offenders are also sent to prison.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    I never understood the argument about the culture difference. Culture can be changed, especially with government backing.

    I've always read those demographic and cultural arguments primarily as a more polite way of phrasing a racial/ethnic argument.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    jhffmn wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    He's trying to say it shouldn't matter what their situation is they should follow the law or do hard time because they're adults and should know better.


    It's a pretty stupid argument.

    We do have a pretty awesome system in place to consider mitigating circumstances already called trial by jury.

    No they don't.

    There is literally no chance of a person getting less time because of their low social standing in the United States.

    Quite the opposite, really.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Just how many of those rich bastards from Wallstreet got jail time for nearly crashing the world economy again?

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    The judge is the decider when it comes to sentencing except in capital cases.

    This is good because the judge is more likely to know more about prisons and how long even a short stay in prison can feel. Jury's would probably choose much higher sentences due to their lack of knowledge about how the prison system works.

  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Prison is not, and should not, be purely rehabilitative. It is also punitive, ie retribution or revenge. A murderer might be highly functioning in society (rich even) who had a particular hatred for someone. This person might be "rehabilitated" - ready to enter society as a useful member unlikely to re-offend - immediately. A car thief may lack any real education, social or vocational skills, place to go (no family or friends) or moral compass. Such a person would almost have to be rebuilt from the ground up to become a useful member of society, especially if committing crimes resulted in no negative consequences.

    Prison isn't just about turning the lives around of those who have committed crimes. Its not just about segmenting the population to quarantine law breakers. Its punitive as well. The nature of the crime determines the sentence, not how long it would take for someone to become useful

    The issues at play here are myriad but the most germane and assailable is the conflation of sentence with punishment. The nature of the crime should be a factor in determining the *punishment,* not the sentence. If all we're debating is the length and severity of penitentiary time, we've already ceded too much ground to the notion of penitentiary time. From a progressive standpoint, I want the murderer rehabbed and back out in society. From a utilitarian standpoint, I want the murderer able to pay some sort of amends or wereguild for what he did. From a regressive perspective, sitting in prison is overly moderate both as punishment and deterrent. So excessive penitentiary time serves the real interest of almost no political bloc besides the prison industry's.

    Excessive penitentiary sentences waste all the lives involved and amount to us going "A little of something seems to help so let's try a lot!" and I think we can come up with better social policy than "Like stummies; but BIGGER"

  • jhffmnjhffmn Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    rockrnger wrote: »
    There is literally no chance of a person getting less time because of their low social standing in the United Stat.

    Wtf? Is that something there should be a chance for? That's like saying having a low social standing makes you less human and therefore less responsible for your actions.

    I'm imagining a progressive sentencing system where time served is dependent on income. Class warfare taken to new levels of retardedness.

    jhffmn on
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Couscous wrote: »
    I never understood the argument about the culture difference. Culture can be changed, especially with government backing.

    This, and the thing that happens in these threads where there is no other country in the world that compares appropriately to the USA. It's tantamount to saying that it's impossible to convince the person claiming that the US is wholly unique and in a situation impossible to compare to other countries, which is fine I guess. It basically means I can stop wasting my own time.

    "Culture differences" is the all-covering bullshit reason that gets trotted out in almost any argument about why *insert issue here* in the U.S. can't be fixed, when alternative systems elsewhere seem to work better. It's just a fancy way of saying "Eh, it'd take work, and I'm feeling laaazyyyy...".

    Another similar one is "The U.S. is so big guys, it just wouldn't work here!" or "U.S. is not homogenous like *insert country here*, and you just don't get how things are here, and it wouldn't work.".

    What all these statements share, is that they're justifications for doing nothing to improve the situations, instead of actually putting the effort in to fix things.

    Rhan9 on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    In the states that do have jury sentencing, prosecutors love it because the juror's lack information.

    http://humanizingideas.law.fsu.edu/faculty/2003-2004workshops/king.pd
    The most ringing endorsement prosecutors gave jury sentencing, however, was as a tool to encourage defendants to waive jury trial. Jury sentences following jury trial often exceeded sentences after plea, they explained, giving them leverage in bargaining. “Let me be candid,” remarked a Commonwealth’s attorney from Virginia, “there is another reason I prefer jury over judge sentencing – it forces pleas. Those higher sentences from a jury tend to concentrate a defendant’s attention.”35 “[J]uries will really lay it on somebody who deserves it,” reported an Arkansas prosecutor, “I think the fear of having those 12 people do that to ‘em, it moves a lot of cases. . . . [O]ur system would suffer total gridlock without jury sentencing . . . because every defendant would exhaust every delay even more, cases wouldn’t move as quickly. If they’re going to be no worse off, they wouldn’t make an effort to resolve the case.”36 The discussion below examines why jury sentencing may serve as a deterrent to jury trial in each of the three states.
    Summed up one defender: “Prosecutors like jury sentencing better, juries [are] more inclined to give higher sentences.”42 Prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges reported that juries are particularly punitive in theft, sex abuse, and drug cases.43

  • jhffmnjhffmn Registered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    I never understood the argument about the culture difference. Culture can be changed, especially with government backing.

    This, and the thing that happens in these threads where there is no other country in the world that compares appropriately to the USA. It's tantamount to saying that it's impossible to convince the person claiming that the US is wholly unique and in a situation impossible to compare to other countries, which is fine I guess. It basically means I can stop wasting my own time.

    "Culture differences" is the all-covering bullshit reason that gets trotted out in almost any argument about why *insert issue here* in the U.S. can't be fixed, when alternative systems elsewhere seem to work better. It's just a fancy way of saying "Eh, it'd take work, and I'm feeling laaazyyyy...".

    Another similar one is "The U.S. is so big guys, it just wouldn't work here!" or "U.S. is not homogenous like *insert country here*, and you just don't get how things are here, and it wouldn't work.".

    What all these statements share, is that they're justifications for doing nothing to improve the situations, instead of actually putting the effort in to fix things.

    So what you are saying is that we should compare the crime rates of Detroit and Iowa city and then make policy prescriptions? Because not taking into consideration variables that influence crime rate because pointing them out gets in the way of policy proposals seems pretty bullshit to me.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    What variables?

    Just curious.

  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    poverty levels?

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    jhffmn wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    There is literally no chance of a person getting less time because of their low social standing in the United Stat.

    Wtf? Is that something there should be a chance for? That's like saying having a low social standing makes you less human and therefore less responsible for your actions.

    I'm imagining a progressive sentencing system where time served is dependent on income. Class warfare taken to new levels of retardedness.

    You're imagining pretty much the exact current reality.

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    jhffmn wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    I never understood the argument about the culture difference. Culture can be changed, especially with government backing.

    This, and the thing that happens in these threads where there is no other country in the world that compares appropriately to the USA. It's tantamount to saying that it's impossible to convince the person claiming that the US is wholly unique and in a situation impossible to compare to other countries, which is fine I guess. It basically means I can stop wasting my own time.

    "Culture differences" is the all-covering bullshit reason that gets trotted out in almost any argument about why *insert issue here* in the U.S. can't be fixed, when alternative systems elsewhere seem to work better. It's just a fancy way of saying "Eh, it'd take work, and I'm feeling laaazyyyy...".

    Another similar one is "The U.S. is so big guys, it just wouldn't work here!" or "U.S. is not homogenous like *insert country here*, and you just don't get how things are here, and it wouldn't work.".

    What all these statements share, is that they're justifications for doing nothing to improve the situations, instead of actually putting the effort in to fix things.

    So what you are saying is that we should compare the crime rates of Detroit and Iowa city and then make policy prescriptions? Because not taking into consideration variables that influence crime rate because pointing them out gets in the way of policy proposals seems pretty bullshit to me.

    What I'm saying is that the arguments I highlighted are often used when people run out of any real counters to why a certain improvement shouldn't be implemented. The three arguments I highlighted aren't made in good faith, as problems to be solved, but as roadblocks to cancel out the very attempt at fixing things, as if though they are obvious reasons why something cannot be possibly, ever, done.

  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    jhffmn wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    There is literally no chance of a person getting less time because of their low social standing in the United Stat.

    Wtf? Is that something there should be a chance for? That's like saying having a low social standing makes you less human and therefore less responsible for your actions.

    I'm imagining a progressive sentencing system where time served is dependent on income. Class warfare taken to new levels of retardedness.

    I think you're reversing the statement rock was saying rather awkwardly.

    He's saying the least advantaged should not be the default and it goes down from there as you increase in privilege.

    The ideal system is

    punishment = sensible punishment - mitigating circumstances

    not

    Punishment = (sensible punishment^mitigating circumstances)

    Bad social circumstances should at least do nothing, instead of exponentially damning you.

    Your reduction ad absurdium, however, is perilously close to the actual system in place which should make you wonder.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Still waiting to hear why actual empirical statistics from Canada don't count as support for my position.

    "Loldetroit is not like Iowa" does not really count, because you're talking the difference between a rural and urban area within one country and not the differences between entire nations. Canada has urban and rural areas too!

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Actually, jhffmn, your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that things are going just swimmingly. So you really need to show me why, statistically and/or morally, we are doing a bang-up job and no change is necessary. That's going to be an uphill battle, to say the least.

  • jhffmnjhffmn Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    What variables?

    Just curious.

    People.

    Culture exists and ignoring it and using say a comparison between Chicago to Tokyo to judge the effectiveness of criminal justice is retarded.

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    jhffmn wrote: »
    Why would you assume that gun ownership drives the crime rate? I would think your acknowlement of European crime cause you to question this. I understand that "American obsession with guns" drives violent crime is a talking point most here assume is true in the total absense of critical thought. But perhaps it's worth questioning that one.

    Gun ownership drives up gun related deaths, including homicides independent to the rest of the homicide/crime rate(as well as other correlative/causal factors such as drug use, poverty, socioeconomic status and history of violence), at the national, state, local and individual level. So the US doesn't has what would otherwise be a substantially lower violent crime rate, but has a truly insane homicide rate.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    jhffmn wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    What variables?

    Just curious.

    People.

    Culture exists and ignoring it and using say a comparison between Chicago to Tokyo to judge the effectiveness of criminal justice is retarded.

    So do you think there is an actual problem, and if so, what is it and to what extent?

    Because so far you've been simply sniping at people who think we need to change things but offering no actual opinions of your own, and certainly no facts to back up those nonexistent opinions (other than "you guys are wrong").

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Actually, jhffmn, your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that things are going just swimmingly. So you really need to show me why, statistically and/or morally, we are doing a bang-up job and no change is necessary. That's going to be an uphill battle, to say the least.

    Now, to be fair to jhffmn, in the surveillance thread we basically said the exact opposite. Not that I think that the criminal justice system is doing at all well, but still.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Actually, jhffmn, your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that things are going just swimmingly. So you really need to show me why, statistically and/or morally, we are doing a bang-up job and no change is necessary. That's going to be an uphill battle, to say the least.

    Now, to be fair to jhffmn, in the surveillance thread we basically said the exact opposite. Not that I think that the criminal justice system is doing at all well, but still.

    To be fair I never held that position in the surveillance thread.

    But that is that and this is this, and he still needs to define a position other than "not yours".

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    jhffmn wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    What variables?

    Just curious.

    People.

    Culture exists and ignoring it and using say a comparison between Chicago to Tokyo to judge the effectiveness of criminal justice is retarded.

    So, what are the exact cultural differences between Detroit and Iowa that indicate they should take different approaches to criminal justice?

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Having a shitty culture is a problem that the government should work to solve. It isn't something where you go, "oh well, guess we can never ever do that."

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Actually, jhffmn, your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that things are going just swimmingly. So you really need to show me why, statistically and/or morally, we are doing a bang-up job and no change is necessary. That's going to be an uphill battle, to say the least.

    Now, to be fair to jhffmn, in the surveillance thread we basically said the exact opposite. Not that I think that the criminal justice system is doing at all well, but still.

    I also think if this was a thread about sexual assault and rape, or white collar crime on Wall Street there would be a lot less "the US is too hard on its criminals" sentiment.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Sign In or Register to comment.