Thread: Bad conditions in American prisons

Like the old saying goes,"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

Originally Posted by cm75

Like the old saying goes,"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

This is really just another way of saying prisoners deserve whatever abuse they suffer in prison.

The punishment should fit the crime. People who have committed very different degrees of crime are thrown together into the same prison. Some of these people deserve to be slowly and painfully tortured to death, while some of the others may have just made a one-time mistake in their life that we can sympathise with.

We often hear stories about fathers that took justice into their own hands when a rapist that raped and murdered his wife/daughter escapes justice based on a technicality of the law. While such fathers should still be sent to prison, that does not mean they should have to suffer bad conditions.

If you are advocating prison abuse as part of the punishment, at the very least the prisoners should first be separated into two groups, based on whether they deserve to be abused or not.

Prisons used to be places of punishment. They were there to hold people who were to be tortured as their punishment. Anyone still okay with that?

From the 19th Century on - and this took place in both the US and in Britain - reformers saw rehabilitation as a possibility for prisoners so reform of character became an objective.

Me I just see a prison as somewhere to keep criminals to give society a rest. I fully support attempts at rehabilitation and education of prisoners, may as well give it a go, it might work with some.

Conditions in prison should be such that prisoners are kept manageable, remember people who staff the prisons on our behalf are working with very dangerous people. I'd keep the bastards fat and lazy, give them junk food and cable, anything to make sure they don't represent a threat to staff.

a typical American prison spends less than $2.50 per day on food per prisoner.

Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/(S(o...ookieSupport=1 (link)



I do not think I could bring myself to eat this wretched food.

abuse?

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

a typical American prison spends less than $2.50 per day on food per prisoner.

Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/(S(oonvja45trqppg555blsdzin))/displayArticle.aspx?articleid= 22246&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupp ort=1 (link)



I do not think I could bring myself to eat this wretched food.

abuse?

There are plenty of inmates who will eat it for you. Then you starve.

Originally Posted by Diuretic

Prisons used to be places of punishment. They were there to hold people who were to be tortured as their punishment. Anyone still okay with that?

From the 19th Century on - and this took place in both the US and in Britain - reformers saw rehabilitation as a possibility for prisoners so reform of character became an objective.

Me I just see a prison as somewhere to keep criminals to give society a rest. I fully support attempts at rehabilitation and education of prisoners, may as well give it a go, it might work with some.

Conditions in prison should be such that prisoners are kept manageable, remember people who staff the prisons on our behalf are working with very dangerous people. I'd keep the bastards fat and lazy, give them junk food and cable, anything to make sure they don't represent a threat to staff.

I'm all for punishment, because it is the fear of punishment that keeps criminals from doing the crime in the first place. Our current system of prisons and puishments is a failure. Criminals reoffend after prison at a rate of 67%. If a drug, therapy or treatment only worked 33% of the time, and caused death and injury the rest, the FDA would never approve it.

I do not support "cruel and unusual punishment." However, my understanding of torture is little different from what was commonly understood 200 years ago. Torture is sadistic punishment for the sake of information or retribution. Anyone would know, Western practices like keelhauling, use of the rack, thumbscrews, flailing, crucifixion, as well as the ones employed by "savages" such as staking victims over antbeds, and running the gauntlet all to be torture. The modern liberal mind now imagines almost all treatment that makes prisoners uncomfortable to be cruel and unusual. Even providing convicts with education, TV and extra-crunchy peanut butter will never satisfy liberal advocates.

Having convicts sit in small cells for decades at a time isn't torture, but in almost every case it is a very uncomfortable, expensive and ineffective in reducing acts of crime. Crime in the US was near its lowest point in the 1950's before liberal activism began to reverse the trend. So the answers to crime prevention is to use the same methods proven by time.

"WWJD?," or more importantly, "What Would Our Founders Do" to the million plus convicts in our system today? All 1st degree murderers, predatory rapists and others who commit acts of beastial violence should be executed after a very short appeals process. All violent criminals should undergo the same treatment after their third-plus conviction, with two stays in prison having had no effect on them. All other crimes should be punished by public humiliation and/or terms in prison less than five years. Most every trial should be held in public. Convicts should have their names and crimes printed on their uniforms. All prisoners should be segregated for safety, and all those reasonably fit should work 6 days a week, usually outside doing hard labor while secured in padded chains. Discipline should follow military standards from the time of our Founders.

Allowing crimes to contine at a rate over a hundred-fold during the last 50 years is cruel and unusually stupid.

When Americans realize that they are were they are do to their own choices maybe they will make better choices. Too many Americans believe it is someone else's fault. If you commit a crime, you are responsible, its not whitey's fault, or the corporations fault, it is your fault alone. But, alas liberals want you to believe its someone else's fault.

This is not to say I believe in the harsh treatment this country doles out for drugs, personally I would release everyone who has a non violent drug conviction immediately, but when it comes to crimes against innocent people were the perp has stripped an innocent person of their rights, then I could care less about them. I would rather spend money helping kids make good decisions than fixing some screwed up adult criminal.

If the fear of punishment actually worked, the prisons would be empty. Treating prisoners with a modicum of human dignity, including protecting them from other inmates, is the very least a civil society can do.
s a measure of the fitness for purpose of the US prison system, think back to Abu Ghraib. Some of those tried and convicted for the inhumane treatment of the detainees were National Guardsmen, whose civilian employment was as prison guards in the US, yet they saw no problem.

Originally Posted by Colonel K

If the fear of punishment actually worked, the prisons would be empty. Treating prisoners with a modicum of human dignity, including protecting them from other inmates, is the very least a civil society can do.
s a measure of the fitness for purpose of the US prison system, think back to Abu Ghraib. Some of those tried and convicted for the inhumane treatment of the detainees were National Guardsmen, whose civilian employment was as prison guards in the US, yet they saw no problem.

sigh''' Okay, another (Briton I'd guess) who's true heart lies with the felon and not the victim. Prisons won't be empty, but there needs to be a goal, and baseline percentage of the population that needs to be delt with in a workable system to keep crime low. With 1.5 million in our syetem, that's way too high. I believe the percentages from the 1950's to be a very high standard to shoot for. In Britain, a good number would be the crime stats before the 1997 gun laws help cause the numbers to increase.

As for you using an example of Abu Garib, how about British treatment of IRA terrorists over the years? I think overall, our treatment of enemy combatants to be very soft, as they deserve a fate no better than German partisans and saboteurs had in the hands of the British...ie...shot.

Forcing criminals to do hard labor is doing them a favor. Gives them a work ethic, an understanding of discipline and also something to do besides fight and kill each other behind bars.

Originally Posted by Greataxe

sigh''' Okay, another (Briton I'd guess) who's true heart lies with the felon and not the victim. Prisons won't be empty, but there needs to be a goal, and baseline percentage of the population that needs to be delt with in a workable system to keep crime low. With 1.5 million in our syetem, that's way too high. I believe the percentages from the 1950's to be a very high standard to shoot for. In Britain, a good number would be the crime stats before the 1997 gun laws help cause the numbers to increase.

As for you using an example of Abu Garib, how about British treatment of IRA terrorists over the years? I think overall, our treatment of enemy combatants to be very soft, as they deserve a fate no better than German partisans and saboteurs had in the hands of the British...ie...shot.

Forcing criminals to do hard labor is doing them a favor. Gives them a work ethic, an understanding of discipline and also something to do besides fight and kill each other behind bars.

It's simple you terminate the ones who will never be released and free up space. Why warehouse them if they have no hope of being free again except through escape?