- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
At the present time all prison sentencing does is throw a bunch of criminals together into a vocational school for crime. Juvenile detention is no different. Violent criminals need to be punished, but they also need to be weaned away from future violent action and taught to become a functioning member of society.
That doesn’t happen when they are merely sent to prison. Instead, they are subjected to violence from their peers, the need to organize to prevent being subjected to continued violence, and once organized they learn the value of continued use of violence in order to gain their own ends.
Many of us seem to think this is a good thing, a deserved punishment for their acts in our world. Unfortunately, it’s a bad thing because they return to society lessons learned and perpetuate even greater violence.
In a different thread I pointed out problems with sending youthful offenders to prison. The same problems we have with adult prisoners.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...says-son-sorry-w-245-a-27.html#post1062185475
Here’s the gist:
Our entire prison system needs to be remodeled to make it a true deterrent, punishment, and tool for rehabilitation. This also applies to juvenile offenses.
Stage I would be to decriminalize most victimless crimes, and eliminate prison sentences for DUI (which would cover drugs and alcohol while driving). DUI would result in incarceration in a drug and alcohol treatment facility followed by a period of supervised release. This would significantly reduce, if not eliminate overcrowding.
Stage II would require separating non-violent and violent offenders into different categories, then predatory sex offenders for a third category. Predatory sex offenders would be diverted to secured psychiatric treatment facilities. All other inmates would go to Stage III facilities set up for violent or non-violent offenders.
Stage III would require conversion of all existing prisons and juvenile detention facilities into a “Separate System” format (also known as the Pennsylvania System); based on the principle of keeping prisoners in solitary confinement throughout their time in prison. No trustees, and almost no physical human interaction at all beyond periodic medical exams and daily feeding.
Thanks to modern technology protected computer systems on a closed network with no internet connection can be installed in each cell to allow contact with prison authorities. This would allow classes to be taught to groups of inmates who remain anonymous to all but the instructor; individual counseling sessions; religious worship sessions; and access to a library for reading purposes. One hour of daily exercise would be allowed to each prisoner alone in a small shared yard; centrally controlled access from a door at the back of the cell with alerts for each prisoner to enter and exit before the next is allowed into the yard.
Prisoners would do HARD TIME. They would NEVER come into contact with any other prisoners. Even the medical facility would have isolation treatment cells. Six months prior to release each prisoner could be given a skills evaluation test, and then offered the option of participation in a vocational training program based on their scores after release.
That’s my idea. Any thoughts or opinions?
As a former LEO, I agree the prison system is badly in need of reform. Indeed, the entire "Justice" system is in desperate need of overhaul.
While I think you have some good ideas, I think there are a couple of caveats to your suggestions:
1. Reform: there's not a lot of it in your system as designed. If a prisoner is to be released eventually, then there ought to be a concentrated effort to reform him. (personally, I don't think those who commit serious violent felonies should EVER get out until they demonstrate tangible reform). They need job training, but they also need the RIGHT kind of socialization to achieve proper reform. Unless they learn to function as part of a social matrix, when they get out they will continue to be trouble.
2. Solitary is rightly considered very harsh, and usually reserved for major problem inmates. I have no problem with making time-out-of-cell or time-in-social-contact a PRIVILEGE based on good behavior and evidence of reform, but making it universal could be considered "cruel and unusual" and may actually HARM the reformation of inmates who are to be eventually released.
Personally, I have posted a plan before with some similarities to yours, but certain crucial differences. One being that if you commit a serious violent felony, you don't GET out without solid evidence of real reform (the details of that would have to be hammered out by experts, I have some suggestions but I'll go into that later).
The second being, if after a gradual release process (halfway house and work, probationary release, full release) you again commit a second serious violent felony, you're DONE. Either a bullet in the brainpan, or if we want to be squeamish drop them in an "Escape from New York" type incarceration zone where no corrections officers are placed at risk by trying to keep order, and leave them there until they die. Food drops as the only humanitarian consideration. Why bother with more, they've proven themselves outside civilization by twice committing heinous crimes against their fellow citizens.
Career criminals and gang bangers should get their own prisons where they can victimize each other and live in their own Hell but others should be segregated from them and the focus should be more on getting them straightened out instead of punished.
No, because you miss the point. All that does is continue to reinforce prior bad behavior. First of all they continue to socialize and instill gang loyalty. Second of all their gang affiliations offer protections and serve as recruitment points for unaffiliated "new fish" put into the system. Thirdly, they go in and come right out with the same uncontrolled violent tendencies. It actually becomes like a vocational school for career criminals and gang-bangers. That was the main point of my argument for a real (not pseudo) Pennsylvania System.
IMO career criminals and gang members are a lost cause and not worth the time or effort. Some people are beyond help and we need to segregate them from society as long as possible.
Unless we're going to just kill them (and we are rightly cautious about engaging in wholesale slaughter on that scale), they need to be reformed. Hell-prison pretty much guarantees that any changes in their attitudes and behaviors will be NEGATIVE.
I'd reserve hell-prison for the ones that are NEVER getting out... in my reform version, murderers, rapists and 2nd-time major-violent-felons would go there. Everyone one else goes to a facility whose express purpose is reform rather than punishment. If we're ever going to let them roam free among us again, they need their behaviors modified and they need a way to make a living honestly.
1. Reform: there's not a lot of it in your system as designed. If a prisoner is to be released eventually, then there ought to be a concentrated effort to reform him. (personally, I don't think those who commit serious violent felonies should EVER get out until they demonstrate tangible reform). They need job training, but they also need the RIGHT kind of socialization to achieve proper reform. Unless they learn to function as part of a social matrix, when they get out they will continue to be trouble.
2. Solitary is rightly considered very harsh, and usually reserved for major problem inmates. I have no problem with making time-out-of-cell or time-in-social-contact a PRIVILEGE based on good behavior and evidence of reform, but making it universal could be considered "cruel and unusual" and may actually HARM the reformation of inmates who are to be eventually released.
Personally, I have posted a plan before with some similarities to yours, but certain crucial differences. One being that if you commit a serious violent felony, you don't GET out without solid evidence of real reform (the details of that would have to be hammered out by experts, I have some suggestions but I'll go into that later).
What if the person DUI crashes their car into another injuring or killing someone, is that still a victimless crime?Stage I would be to decriminalize most victimless crimes, and eliminate prison sentences for DUI (which would cover drugs and alcohol while driving). DUI would result in incarceration in a drug and alcohol treatment facility followed by a period of supervised release. This would significantly reduce, if not eliminate overcrowding.
What if the person DUI crashes their car into another injuring or killing someone, is that still a victimless crime?
What if a person brings a gun to the town square and starts shooting into the air wildly, if a bullet doesn't fall on anyone injuring or killing them, is that still a victimless crime?
What if a person DUI weaves in and out of downtown traffic, if he doesn't hit anyone injuring or killing them, is that still a victimless crime?
Reckless endangerment is a very real and serious crime, one that should not ever include trivialized sentencing.
What if a person sells drugs/alcohol to a minor, placing that minor at risk in these and many other ways, is that transaction still a victimless crime?
What if people know in advance that these behaviors are illegal because of the likelihood that someone else might be injured or killed by them, does the premise that "my addiction made me do it" warrant a drastically reduced sentence?
What if people so-sentenced to a drastically reduced stay in recovery treatment center simply do what Lindsay Lohan keeps doing: pretending, dodging, .. repeating? One day she's going to kill someone DUI.
And, by moving these criminals from one facility to another, isn't that just shuffling people around to multiple facilities in attempt to reduce over-crowding in another facility? Creating new facilities to end facility over-crowding is still part of the "over-crowded facility" complaint.
Drug and alcohol crimes must be taken seriously. Just because there's a lot of them doesn't mean we should do anything to reduce sentences, as that would be unjust to the innocent potential victims.
Prison reform is a challenging task, one that cannot be ideologically motivated if it's to be accomplished successfully.
Prison reform is really a secondary issue, a symptom, one that will be relieved when we solve society's foundational problem: over-crowded cities.
Get the population change rate to negative for a few generations and watch the "prison over-crowding problem" simply disappear.
What if the person DUI crashes their car into another injuring or killing someone, is that still a victimless crime?
What if a person brings a gun to the town square and starts shooting into the air wildly, if a bullet doesn't fall on anyone injuring or killing them, is that still a victimless crime?
What if a person DUI weaves in and out of downtown traffic, if he doesn't hit anyone injuring or killing them, is that still a victimless crime?
Reckless endangerment is a very real and serious crime, one that should not ever include trivialized sentencing.
What if a person sells drugs/alcohol to a minor, placing that minor at risk in these and many other ways, is that transaction still a victimless crime?
What if people know in advance that these behaviors are illegal because of the likelihood that someone else might be injured or killed by them, does the premise that "my addiction made me do it" warrant a drastically reduced sentence?
What if people so-sentenced to a drastically reduced stay in recovery treatment center simply do what Lindsay Lohan keeps doing: pretending, dodging, .. repeating? One day she's going to kill someone DUI.
And, by moving these criminals from one facility to another, isn't that just shuffling people around to multiple facilities in attempt to reduce over-crowding in another facility? Creating new facilities to end facility over-crowding is still part of the "over-crowded facility" complaint.
Drug and alcohol crimes must be taken seriously. Just because there's a lot of them doesn't mean we should do anything to reduce sentences, as that would be unjust to the innocent potential victims.
Prison reform is a challenging task, one that cannot be ideologically motivated if it's to be accomplished successfully.
Prison reform is really a secondary issue, a symptom, one that will be relieved when we solve society's foundational problem: over-crowded cities.
Get the population change rate to negative for a few generations and watch the "prison over-crowding problem" simply disappear.
No, reckless endangerment is not a victimless crime.Wherever in your list of "what if's" there is a "victim," then it is NOT a victim-less crime. It them becomes either a non-violent or a violent offense, and prison becomes an option.
No, once again.As for "other problems?" This is a single thread, impossible to address ALL of societies problems. One problem per thread please! LOL
There is great value in the "you must make the victim whole" concept, as long as it is within the financial or personal powers ability of the criminal to do so.Frankly, most crimes that don't involve deliberate acts of violence, or deliberate acts of fraud/theft/vandalism inflicting disasterous financial loss, should chiefly be handled by "you must make the victim whole" (as much as possible) as punishment.
This principle already exists in Western jurisprudence, that in civil cases the object is to 'make the victim whole' as much as possible, or fully recompense them for their loss or suffering. IMHO most minor non-violent crimes should be handled in this manner if possible.
Repeat offenders and those acting in malice are another matter...
No, reckless endangerment is not a victimless crime.
Firing a gun into the air and weaving DUI and selling drugs/alcohol to minors is not a victimless crime, whether or not a terrible accident/consequence occurs.
Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person(s). The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.
There should rightly be no free-passes or trivialized sentences for reckless endangerment.
No, once again.
Here you miss the systemic nature of the major problem of which prison over-crowding/etc. is merely a symptom…These foundational problem must be solved, the only way to alleviate the symptoms such as prison over-crowding.
There is great value in the "you must make the victim whole" concept, as long as it is within the financial or personal powers ability of the criminal to do so.
Reckless endangerment does not fall under this category, however, as the threat to the victim is to all members of society, both individually and as a whole.
In this case, and in cases where the criminal lacks the power to restore the victim's arm or life lost in the bullet fall, the DUI accident, or the minor's overdose, the "you must makethe victim whole" concept finishes a distant second in value to society to preventative measures such as making the act itself of reckless endangerment such as firing in the air wildly in the town square, driving DUI, and selling drugs/alcohol to minors, a severly punishable crime.
Just because someone can't myopically see any victims doesn't mean the act itself wasn't severely criminal in and of itself, and thus severely punishable.
If I smoke marijuana in my own home, is that a victimless crime?
Here you betray your ideological influence in dealing with the problem, one that erroneously categorizes the reckless endangerment of firing a gun wildly in the air in the town square, driving while DUI, and selling drugs/alcohol to minors as "victimless" crimes.Once again, let the punishment fit the crime. If there is no victim, decriminalize the problem. If there is a victim, let my suggested Stages apply.
Or, in other words, I busted your fantasy.NO, I merely recognize that ALL problems cannot be addressed in any single thread. Furthermore, there is no point in diverting a thread down every little separate path people bring up. The issue I raise arises from an existing problem with deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation of our prison system.
The various “systemic problems” in society are better addressed in specific threads discussing each.
If you do so in front of a minor child, and abusing pot is illegal, you're exposing a child to criminal behavior, and thereby may have committed a reckless endangerment crime.If I smoke marijuana in my own home, is that a victimless crime?
In a different thread I pointed out problems with sending youthful offenders to prison. The same problems we have with adult prisoners.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...says-son-sorry-w-245-a-27.html#post1062185475
Here’s the gist:
Our entire prison system needs to be remodeled to make it a true deterrent, punishment, and tool for rehabilitation. This also applies to juvenile offenses.
Stage I would be to decriminalize most victimless crimes, and eliminate prison sentences for DUI (which would cover drugs and alcohol while driving). DUI would result in incarceration in a drug and alcohol treatment facility followed by a period of supervised release. This would significantly reduce, if not eliminate overcrowding.
Stage II would require separating non-violent and violent offenders into different categories, then predatory sex offenders for a third category. Predatory sex offenders would be diverted to secured psychiatric treatment facilities. All other inmates would go to Stage III facilities set up for violent or non-violent offenders.
Stage III would require conversion of all existing prisons and juvenile detention facilities into a “Separate System” format (also known as the Pennsylvania System); based on the principle of keeping prisoners in solitary confinement throughout their time in prison. No trustees, and almost no physical human interaction at all beyond periodic medical exams and daily feeding.
Thanks to modern technology protected computer systems on a closed network with no internet connection can be installed in each cell to allow contact with prison authorities. This would allow classes to be taught to groups of inmates who remain anonymous to all but the instructor; individual counseling sessions; religious worship sessions; and access to a library for reading purposes. One hour of daily exercise would be allowed to each prisoner alone in a small shared yard; centrally controlled access from a door at the back of the cell with alerts for each prisoner to enter and exit before the next is allowed into the yard.
Prisoners would do HARD TIME. They would NEVER come into contact with any other prisoners. Even the medical facility would have isolation treatment cells. Six months prior to release each prisoner could be given a skills evaluation test, and then offered the option of participation in a vocational training program based on their scores after release.
That’s my idea. Any thoughts or opinions?
The only thing habitual criminals understand is punishment and for this elite group I would make prison far tougher than it is today. No TV, no socializing, no gymnasium and constant lock down. Prison time needs to be so unbearable that these thugs will do anything not to go back, maybe even get a job.
1.) Rehabilitation has shown to be more effecting reducing crime rates.
2.) There is the protection against 'cruel and unusual punishment'. So, you can't get too crazy.
3.) You didn't really answer my question.
Here you betray your ideological influence in dealing with the problem, one that erroneously categorizes the reckless endangerment of firing a gun wildly in the air in the town square, driving while DUI, and selling drugs/alcohol to minors as "victimless" crimes.
Thus your proposed solutions will be rejected by the great majority of Americans, those not suffering from a pre-conceived ideological predisposition to extemist perspectives.
Or, in other words, I busted your fantasy.
Well, if it's all that important to you as an exercise, fantasize away!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?