Prison Reform?

[Captain Adverse]

Facts missing? It was that you were misrepresenting. Making false claims. And exaggerating. Plain ol' dishonesty. and you still are doing it.

Troll much do ya? Everything I have stated is not only factual but true in reference to anything where I was not offering an opinion. My program is a suggestion based on penal studies, experience, and UP TO DATE data gathered from official sources.

Forgive me if I continue to ignore your aspersions and only focus on any possible real issues you might raise. :fyi:

These stats also do not distinguish between those serving for multiple sentences.Do you not understand that? Someone could be serving 18 months on a non-violent or/drug charge, and also serving a longer one for violence.

What I understand is that you are incorrect. The DOJ information on prisoners is by inmates and the primary crime they were convicted of. The numbers are the total of all prisoners in federal and state prison. Multiple sentences have absolutely NOTHING to do with such figures. If there are only 12 people in a jail, and I say 5 are in for violent crime, 3 are in for drug offenses, and 4 are in for theft, then it is clear I am discussing TWELVE PRISONERS regardless of how many other lesser crimes are listed on their resumes.

As for your comment on a fact I included without a cite? There are lots of studies I could have included. Sorry I did not for that one knowing you would try to undermine it with B/S comments and lack of understanding as usual. But here it is just for you (see page 9):

http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08_01_REP_DrugTx_AC-PS.pdf

It also states:

16.6 percent of state prisoners and 18.4 percent of federal prisoners committed their crimes to obtain money for drugs; one in three state prisoners reported using drugs at the time of their offense, and one in four violent offenders reported drug use at the time of their crime; and 64 percent of state prisoners who committed a property offense reported drug use in the month prior to arrest, and 38 percent reported use during the time of the offense.

I only used the 16% figure since it could include any other non-drug offense, and there are more state prisoners than Federal ones so it would still allow for a percentage of the Federal prisoners in the total number gathered from non-drug offenders. I also brought this up because i am well-aware and have always stated that many inmates who committed violent or other crimes were motivated by drugs.

I certainly hope the following isn't the information you were relying on to say such.

No, as you can see above, it was not the source I used.

When we are talking about consensual relations between the inmates, it is just a rule violation. What is funny here is you just can't stay on point.

This is a perfect example of your penchant for presenting invalid points. Please, provide a factual citation to any Federal or State prison in the USA that permits “consensual sex between inmates.”

Besides, that is what YOU were trying to divert the issue to. I was always talking about segregation of all prisoners in my suggested program. Segregation to prevent sexual contact, violence, theft, abuse of any kind, gang affiliation recruitment, and criminal vocational training.

YOU seem to think consensual sex between inmates is permissible. It’s not, because the rules are set up to control inmates, not for the fun of it. Both consensual sex and rape occur…NEITHER are supposed to, as you clearly admit even as you dismiss it as merely “some rule.” The attitude you seem to have that in prison “rules are made to be broken” is hard to fathom in this debate. My plan eliminates the possibility of ALL inmate-on-inmate sexual contact. PERIOD!

It isn't as often as one is lead to believe. Period. And the cause of it isn't just the movies, but the media/news in general, and what one would expect from concentrating violent people together. And most of that physical violence is happening at the higher security levels where the really violent ones are concentrated. Which is why I pointed out that the tv shows ignore the lower security level prisons. .

Again, it happens quite a lot, and I’ve provided facts that show this. You respond with…opinion as usual. Now you’ve made an assertion without providing any citations either in your support, or to refute my facts.

The fact that it happens AT ALL is the issue. My plan eliminates the possibility of inmate-on-inmate violence. PERIOD!

And more importantly, nothing you provided justifies your idea of segregation. Nor have you been able to provide any information or studies to even suggest your idea of segregation would be good, or even work.

Every one of the above three FACTUAL situations justifies my idea of segregation. As do the other issues I raised in my ongoing discourse here. NO violence would occur, NO sexual activity, NO gang recruiting, NO thefts or assaults, NO criminal education, NO criminal networking leading to future contact after release…NONE of that which is occurring currently even as we speak.

Meanwhile, since inmates would only associate with prison staff, including counselors, social workers, clergy, etc. they would be learning how to deal with effective members of society. Since they have access to regular visitation from family, as well as access to books, non-violent movies and TV shows they would not be driven “crazy” by isolation. Finally, with voluntary access to closed net computer-connected participation in educational programs offered by teachers working at the facility they’d also advance their learning skills.

I did not include this as a Stage when I discussed it with others, but I’d add a Stage IV voluntary program of housing and vocational training programs after release from incarceration. That would be the inmates choice.

In any case, for whatever reason, you seem to think prison is supposed to be a place where people expelled from common society for a period of time should be allowed to create their own "inner" society; and then do what they want to pass the time until their release date comes around. Sorry, despite the crappy system we have today due to over-population caused by things that should not be crimes...it is supposed to be a place of punishment. Deterrence is a secondary concern. Rehabilitation should be an important concern. IMO the Status Quo you argue for does none of this. Now feel free to do w/e; I'm satisfied I made my point as clearly as I can to you. :2brickwal

 

[Captain Adverse]

You are the only one who has displayed a lack of knowledge.

You already agreed with me that the punishment was separation from society. I am sure we both can show that.

Yet you took it further and said that it included "all society" (which is impossible), and also included "IS to submit them to “hard time.”".
None of which is true, and none of which you can factually support.

You have already been asked to support these claims, yet haven't. And the only reason why is because you can't.
They are what you believe. That is all.
Which shows that you are the one with the faulty ideas that have nothing to do with reality.

And we were not talking about the theory of deterrence/punishment/rehabilitation. But reality.
In reality and in general, there is no deterrence in the criminal thought process. That is what needs to be fixed.
In reality and theory, the punishment is separation from this society. Nothing other than that.
And in reality, in general, even though this hasn't been addressed here, there really isn't rehabilitation in prison. And don't go off citing Voc programs. Not the same thing.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had quoted me twice on the same original reply. Let me make a few final points in response then.

The reason you are arguing against it is because you think it is too harsh, detrimental, unfair, etc. Essentially, you wouldn’t want to go through it, and you don’t want others to go through it either. Voila!! The essence of “deterrence.” I don’t want to go through that! What can I do to prevent myself from facing that? If even some who are considering a criminal act engage in that type of thought process, then it serves as a deterrent.

Those who chose to ignore the possibility? Maybe they’ll think twice after they experience it. As for those who have experienced it and subsequently act more harshly when committing a crime to try to avoid it? They truly deserve to experience it permanently, only in "supermax."

Finally, we do not send them to prison to set up a NEW society for them to integrate into. Complete separation makes for truly hard time. Period! ...., but ONLY if it is true separation from “society” which means ALL society, including the criminal ones that develop in prison.

I did say “all” society, and you say this is impossible. You are correct if you meant isolation from the overall set of mankind; of which nations, communities, gangs, families, and [/U]even other individuals[/U] all form a part. It would drive a human crazy to have absolutely no contact with any member of humankind for any lengthy period of time.

However, my program does not do that. You consistently ignore both my caveat of segregation from “the criminal ones (societies) that develop in prison;” and my repeated statements about access to family, counselors, social workers, teachers, and other prison staff while the inmate is segregated. I find it odd that you think it is important for a prisoner to associate with other prisoners; rather than being made to focus solely on more positive role models and support systems.

Regardless of what you think, prison is punishment. Prison rules and prison management are set up to control a prisoner while he is enduring his punishment. As long as the system complies with the law and is not set up to be cruel and unusual, the system can be implimented. Total isolation from all human contact would be cruel and unusual. Still, as you acknowledge "supermax" prisons already exist, therefore the system I suggest is neither cruel nor unusual. In fact, the system I suggest is nowhere near as harsh as "supermax" for many reasons already explained in prior comments throughout this thread.

 

[Excon]

An accurate recap.

Dude, dude, dude... no joke... this is funny.

There is like this guy... you know... like on the internet.

He told everyone about his idea... and then asked everyone for; "Any thoughts or opinions?"

Then when someone gives them an opinion he doesn't like, he dismisses it because it is "personal opinion", which is exactly what he asked for. :doh

It don't get funnier than that. :lamo​

He then tries to insinuate that the person is a troll for pointing out his errors. :doh

It is hilarious! :lamo

 

[Excon]

Troll much do ya?

Knock off the bs and pay attention, because you are still wrong!

Everything I have stated is not only factual but true in reference to anything where I was not offering an opinion.

NO it hasn't been.
It has been as I stated.
Misrepresentations, false claims, and exaggerations.
Plain ol' dishonesty.
And you still are doing it.
Just as I said and keep pointing out.

My program is a suggestion based on penal studies, experience, and UP TO DATE data gathered from official sources.

No. It is based on your opinion of what you think would be a good idea. That is all.
Which also flies in the face of the reality that extended segregation/isolation is harmful.

And from what you have displayed so far, your experience and understanding is lacking a great deal.

What I understand is that you are incorrect.

Then you do not understand anything, as it is you who are incorrect.

The DOJ information on prisoners is by inmates and the primary crime they were convicted of. The numbers are the total of all prisoners in federal and state prison.

:naughty
Since you are trying to represent that you do know what you are talking about; Prove it!

Show everybody the different rules, the information to which they apply or don't, how they apply, when they apply, when they don't apply, and how it allows for skewed reports from one year to the next.

And by the way, you really should check the methodology of the report you are reading to see what they relied upon.
You just might find that the specific info came from a different source which was not limited by the standards you think apply. :lamo

Multiple sentences have absolutely NOTHING to do with such figures.

:doh
Strange! You say I am wrong and then say the same thing? It is not reported.

In addition; It can be when it is a focus of the report.

But that is also the point. What you provided does not include that information, so your number is not accurate.
Do you not understand that?
Your numbers are not accurate because it does not reflect those serving multiple sentences. Which does matter to whether or not your ¼ figure was accurate.

Since you don't seem to understand. Let me help you out again.
One could be serving a short sentence for a violent crime in addition to a drug crime, finish and be discharged from the violent one, and then start finishing or serving the time for the drug crime.
Which would then be reflected as serving for a drug crime in the next report, and not as previously reflected as serving for a violent one.

But not only that, as it was previously mentioned, those doing time for manufacturing and trafficking are included in those drug crime stats.
They should not be excused, as they are involved in criminal enterprise. Especially when it comes to the harsher drugs.

If there are only 12 people in a jail, and I say 5 are in for violent crime, 3 are in for drug offenses, and 4 are in for theft, then it is clear I am discussing TWELVE PRISONERS regardless of how many other lesser crimes are listed on their resumes.

There you go assuming again. You have not shown that to be the case at all.



:laughat:

As for your comment on a fact I included without a cite? There are lots of studies I could have included. Sorry I did not for that one knowing you would try to undermine it with B/S comments and lack of understanding as usual. But here it is just for you (see page 9):

http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08_01_REP_DrugTx_AC-PS.pdf

It also states:

16.6 percent of state prisoners and 18.4 percent of federal prisoners committed their crimes to obtain money for drugs; one in three state prisoners reported using drugs at the time of their offense, and one in four violent offenders reported drug use at the time of their crime; and 64 percent of state prisoners who committed a property offense reported drug use in the month prior to arrest, and 38 percent reported use during the time of the offense.

I only used the 16% figure since it could include any other non-drug offense, and there are more state prisoners than Federal ones so it would still allow for a percentage of the Federal prisoners in the total number gathered from non-drug offenders.

Holy ****!
Really?
Do you not bother to read what you present?
How many times is this now you have been caught not knowing of the information you present?
Had you bothered to follow the footnote you would have seen it is the same material and source.

[highlight]It is the same information.[/highlight]​

:laughat:

I certainly hope the following isn't the information you were relying on to say such.

No, as you can see above, it was not the source I used.

Yeah, We can see you were wrong again.
Which is apparently the norm for you in this topic.

The information is the same, and comes from the same.
You may not have used that specific web page, but it is the same information.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report
October 2006, NCJ 213530

Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004

By Christopher J. Mumola, BJS Policy Analyst
and Jennifer C. Karberg, BJS Statistician​

[...]

Methodology

The findings in this report are based on the data in the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2004.​

​

And the the other point, which was of more import, was that you were also wrong in that the stat was of those who committed a crime to get drug money, not simply in relation to.

Now, another report claims that 16% of state prisoners, and 18% of federal prisoners convicted of other offenses claim their offenses were in relationship to drugs. That means at least 195,042 of non-drug listed prisoners were imprisoned for crimes related to drugs.

It is not a reflection of any other sentence they are serving. It does not effect your % statement at all. Just as I said.
You also wrongly represented it as the percentages of claims that their offenses were in relationship to drugs. When that just isn't an accurate statement. As there are other crimes besides just those committed to get drug money that are in relationship to drugs.
You should really stop making definitive statements when you can support them. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

And not only that, you took one type of stats from an earlier year, and tried to say they held to stats gathered years later of a different type. It just doesn't work that way.

A learned person would have prefaced that information as such, and not wrongly represented it as you did.

But as we already know, you like trying to say something applies that doesn't. So it does figure.

 

[Excon]

When we are talking about consensual relations between the inmates, it is just a rule violation. What is funny here is you just can't stay on point.

This is a perfect example of your penchant for presenting invalid points. Please, provide a factual citation to any Federal or State prison in the USA that permits “consensual sex between inmates.”

Wrong!
This is a example of your penchant for going off on idiotic tangential bs.

No one said it was permitted. But you already know that.
It was also acknowledged that is was against the rules. But you also know that.
Being against the rules does not make it any less consensual. Which you also know.
It also isn't illegal. But you know that too.

It was said that most sex between inmates is consensual and not abusive. Which is true.
That was the point made. Which you apparently don't like and went off half cocked.

Beside that what YOU were talking about. I was talking about segregation of all prisoners in my suggested program. Segregation to prevent sexual contact, violence, theft, abuse of any kind, gang affiliation recruitment, and criminal vocational training.

Yes we know what you were talking about. Your ridiculous idea.
An idea that can be seen to be more harmful than helpful to both the inmate and society.

YOU seem to think consensual sex between inmates is permissible. It’s not, because the rules are set up to control inmates, not for the fun of it.

:naughty
Still misrepresenting, huh?
The point, which apparently you keep needing to be told, is that there is a difference between sexual abuse and consensual sex.
Had you bothered to pay attention you would have known that.

Both consensual sex and rape occur…NEITHER are supposed to, as you clearly admit even as you dismiss it as merely “some rule.” The attitude you seem to have that in prison “rules are made to be broken” is hard to fathom in this debate. My plan eliminates the possibility of ALL inmate on inmate sexual contact. PERIOD!
[...]
The fact that it happens AT ALL is the issue. My plan eliminates the possibility of inmate on inmate violence. PERIOD!

iLOL
:doh
These issues can be dealt with in a different manner than they currently are w/o going to extremes like you want to do.

Again, it happens quite a lot, and I’ve provided facts that show this. You respond with…opinion as usual. Now you’ve made an assertion without providing any citations either in your support, or to refute my facts.

Oy Vey!
You provided info that did not need to be provided.
The only issue at hand in this regards was that violence does not happen as often as the public is lead to believe.
You agreed with that. Period. End of story.

And as stated, most of the violence is concentrated at higher security levels. I seriously hope you are not disagreeing with that, as it is true.

Every one of the above three FACTUAL situations justifies my idea of segregation.
As do the other issues I raised in my ongoing discourse here.

Wrong! The justification exists solely in your mind.
You do not punish everyone for the actions of a few as you want to do. That is wrong. And could be considered cruel and unusual.

We already know that isolation/segregation causes harm, and you haven't shown your version of it wouldn't.
Nothing justifies the additional cost per person or harm you want to do with your idea.
And no, I do not have to support that claim. You are the one who must show your idea wouldn't be harmful, as we already know segregation can be.
And you have failed at showing that it wouldn't be in your idea.

NO violence would occur, NO sexual activity, NO gang recruiting, NO thefts or assaults, NO criminal education, NO criminal networking leading to future contact after release…NONE of that which is occurring currently even as we speak.

Doesn't matter.
Your idea still causes them to be isolated/segregated, and we already know that is harmful.

Meanwhile, since inmates would only associate with prison staff, including counselors, social workers, clergy, etc. they would be learning how to deal with effective members of society. Since they have access to regular visitation from family, as well as access to books, non-violent movies and TV shows they would not be driven “crazy” by isolation. Finally, with voluntary access to closed net computer-connected participation in educational programs offered by teachers working at the facility they’d also advance their learning skills.

This is your concept. One that you have not proven to be true.

In any case, for whatever reason, you seem to think prison is supposed to be a place where people expelled from common society for a period of time should be allowed to create their own "inner" society; and then do what they want to pass the time until their release date comes around.

:doh
I never said that, did I?
I keep telling you to pay attention, yet you just don't do it.

Sorry, despite the crappy system we have today due to over-population caused by things that should not be crimes...it is supposed to be a place of punishment.

Things that should not be crimes? Said who? You?
Thankfully you don't speak for everyone. And you definitely wouldn't get anywhere near any consensus that the crimes related to the harsher drugs not be considered crimes.
Making what you say about Stage I of your idea even more implausible and unlikely.

IMO the Status Quo you argue for does none of this. Now feel free to do w/e; I'm satisfied I made my point as clearly as I can to you.

I am not arguing for the status quo. I pointed out a few facts that you took issue with, and am arguing against your idiotic idea because you have failed to show it wouldn't be harmful.

The reason you are arguing against it is because you think it is too harsh, detrimental, unfair, etc. Essentially, you wouldn’t want to go through it, and you don’t want others to go through it either. Voila!! The essence of “deterrence.” I don’t want to go through that! What can I do to prevent myself from facing that? If even some who are considering a criminal act engage in that type of thought process, then it serves as a deterrent.

Holy ****! Voila nothing!
I argue against it because it isn't a good idea.
And in general, a criminal would not engage in such a rational thought process. That is what you do not seem to understand.

It would drive a human crazy to have absolutely no contact with any member of humankind for any lengthy period of time.

However, my program does not do that. You consistently ignore both my caveat of segregation from “the criminal ones (societies) that develop in prison;” and my repeated statements about access to family, counselors, social workers, teachers, and other prison staff while the inmate is segregated.

I am not ignoring it but rejecting it, as it wouldn't make one bit of difference to the segregation and isolation they are experiencing.
Nor have you shown it wouldn't harm them.

I find it odd that you think it is important for a prisoner to associate with other prisoners; rather than being made to focus solely on more positive role models and support systems.

I do not consider this, and have no need to once your idea was rejected.
You want to consider it under different circumstances, we can do that. Under your idea, it isn't needed.

Regardless of what you think, prison is punishment. Prison rules and prison management are set up to control a prisoner while he is enduring his punishment. As long as the system complies with the law and is not set up to be cruel and unusual, the system can be implimented. Total isolation from all human contact would be cruel and unusual. Still, as you acknowledge "supermax" prisons already exist, therefore the system I suggest is neither cruel nor unusual. In fact, the system I suggest is nowhere near as harsh as "supermax" for many reasons already explained in prior comments throughout this thread.

:doh
Your idea further limits personal interaction than even that of Supermax, which we already know is harmful.
Nor does it change the repetitive daily interaction with the tiny cell.
Providing for more communication over a computer doesn't change that.

Supermax is needed specifically for the type of inmate it houses.
Your idea is not.


Thankfully your idea will never be implemented in all 50 states. No legislature would be stupid enough to buy into the idea, or the costs.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Knock off the bs and pay attention, because you are still wrong!

Wrong!

You keep asking me to prove things I have already proven. You simply ignore the proof and I don’t believe in arguing around in circles. Furthermore you continuously avoid the actual issues and try to substitute red herring issues in their place.

You sound like a “jailhouse lawyer” so let’s pretend you are on a witness stand and bound by normal rules of testimony. I am just going to ask you a short series of true or false questions. Only if you provide a “false” response will any explanation be acceptable:

1. At least ¼ of the inmates in state and federal prisons were convicted of some drug or drug-related offense, true or false?

2. Removal of all non-violent drug offenders from the mix will we free up space in prisons, true or false?

3. Inmate-on-inmate sexual activity of any kind currently occurs in state and federal prisons, true or false?

4. Segregation of all prisoners would eliminate all inmate-on-inmate sex in prisons, true or false?

5. Inmate-on inmate violence of any kind currently occurs in state and federal prisons, true or false?

6. Segregation of all prisoners would eliminate all inmate-on-inmate violence in prisons, true or false?

7. Prison inmates are subject to gang activity of varying kinds, true or false?

8. Segregation of all prisoners would eliminate all gang activity in prisons, true or false?

9. Inmates are able to make new criminal contacts with other inmates while in prison that can continue after they are released, true or false?

10. Segregation of all prisoners would eliminate all new criminal contacts while in prison, true or false?

11. The conditions of Stage III segregation I listed are something most prisoners would prefer not to experience, true or false?

12. It is possible that knowledge of such conditions might deter some people from committing crime, true or false?

Okay, that’s 12 questions each of which requires a simple answer because each can only be true or false. If true, no explanation is necessary because they are factual. If false, you must justify your reasoning with factual data as to why the situation in the question is false.

If you can't focus and deal with clearly stated issues as shown above, then you are simply avoiding the true controversy and there is really no use debating with you.

 

[SILVER SURFER]

Ahhh ... So what you are saying is that your use of that extreme exaggeration was not to make a point.

No, what I'm saying is I WAS making a point. Your calling it an "extreme exaggeration" doesn't make it one.

Hmmm? Ok. So I was wrong.

Yes, you were.

Forgive me for giving you the benefit of a doubt.

Beg forgiveness elsewhere - you ain't gettin' it here.

But that means what you said is even more troubling.
Because that means that you actually believe the idiotic extreme exaggeration your were spewing is correct, when it is anything but correct.
That is troubling.

Yes, I believe it. Again, your calling it an incorrect "idiotic extreme exaggeration" doesn't make it so. If that troubles you, too damn bad, so sad.

Btw, you do not know what my favorite word is.

BTW, I don't give a rat's hairy little butt what your favorite word is. But given the frequency with which you use "hyperbole", that's got to be it.

Oh, and BTW, once again:

 

[Excon]

No, what I'm saying is I WAS making a point. Your calling it an "extreme exaggeration" doesn't make it one.

Your point fails because of the extreme exaggeration.

Beg forgiveness elsewhere - you ain't gettin' it here.

Ooooooooh, that is such a great retort!

Not! :lamo

Yes, I believe it. Again, your calling it an incorrect "idiotic extreme exaggeration" doesn't make it so. If that troubles you, too damn bad, so sad.

First of all, it is extreme exaggeration.
Not because I say so, but because it fits the definition.

ex·ag·ger·a·tion
igˌzajəˈrāSHən
noun

1. a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.​

exaggeration​

It is extreme because you included all inmates and made it a definitive statement.

It is idiotic, because it is extreme exaggeration that has nothing to do with reality.

You can believe your extreme exaggeration all you want. It doesn't change the fact that it is an extreme exaggeration and that you are wrong.

BTW, I don't give a rat's hairy little butt what your favorite word is. But given the frequency with which you use "hyperbole", that's got to be it.

Oh, and BTW, once again:

:doh
Showing that you again care enough to reply.
:lamo

Doesn't matter as you are still wrong, all the way around.

But you should follow your own advice, as it pertains to you.

 

[Excon]

You keep asking me to prove things I have already proven.

I have not asked you to prove anything that you have already proven.
Stop being dishonest.
If you believe so, it is because you are not paying attention like I keep telling you to.

You simply ignore the proof

You have not proved anything I asked, and therefore could not have ignored it.
Stop lying.

You still have yet to prove, as I keep pointing out, that the inmates would not suffer under your stage III confinement protocols.

Furthermore you continuously avoid the actual issues

Stop lying. I have given you what you asked for, and addressed your issues.
It is you who have failed at justifying your idea.

and try to substitute red herring issues in their place.

More lies.
Your replies have been red herrings.

You sound like a “jailhouse lawyer”

More bs from you I see.
This, as well as your other replies makes it clear that you sound like one.

so let’s pretend

We Are not going to pretend anything.
Your pretending that your idea is good is what got you here in the first place.
It isn't a good idea.

:laughat:

Only if you provide a “false” response will any explanation be acceptable:

[...]

Okay, that’s 12 questions each of which requires a simple answer because each can only be true or false. If true, no explanation is necessary because they are factual. If false, you must justify your reasoning with factual data as to why the situation in the question is false.

How cute. You think you can dictate what is said.
:lamo
Guess what?
You don't!

If you can't focus and deal with clearly stated issues as shown above, then you are simply avoiding the true controversy and there is really no use debating with you.

This is your problem for not paying attention, as much of the factual information is already admitted to.
It having been done so, does not make your ideas good either, nor do they justify going to an extreme as your idea does.

That is just part of what you are not understanding. Your extremism is not justified. Period. You do not punish all for the actions of a few.
Extreme measures of security and control, like Supermax, is earned by the individual's actions. Not by all.
You seem to think that the lofty goals of reducing/eliminating violence (in addition to the rule violating "consensual sex") because it isn't supposed to occur, justifies your extreme measures. It doesn't.

Under your logic; Violence is not supposed to occur in society either, so we should just lock everybody up, that way we can be assured it doesn't happen. Problem solved, eh?
That is as idiotic as your idea, which is why neither will ever be implemented.


You think this is a simple, "If A, then B" scenario, and it just isn't.
You want to go "If A", ignore everything else applicable, and then say "Then B".
It doesn't work that way.
Your B, isn't justified. Not by the possible harm created, or by the costs.

It's like you think "If A, then B" is all that matters, when in reality, a whole lot more matters.

Which is why your following questions are idiotic.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

1. At least ¼ of the inmates in state and federal prisons were convicted of some drug or drug-related offense, true or false?

I see you still are not getting it.
You can not state that number as a definitive by which the population incarcerated would be reduced.

Why?
Because many of those who are serving multiple sentences would still be serving under your idea of incarceration because they still had to serve for their other crimes.


In addition. You keep ignoring/or failing to address that society is not going to turn a bind eye to those non-violent crimes that involve the harsher drugs, let alone trafficking and manufacturing, which is deliberate criminal enterprise. Which makes your idea untenable and would reduce the figure the prison population would be diminished by.

2. Removal of all non-violent drug offenders from the mix will we free up space in prisons, true or false?

Doesn't matter if it would or not.
What matters is if it is a good idea. As per the above answer, it just isn't a good idea, and is highly unlikely to occur.

3. Inmate-on-inmate sexual activity of any kind currently occurs in state and federal prisons, true or false?

Are you not paying attention? Yes it happens, and as stated, most is consensual.

4. Segregation of all prisoners would eliminate all inmate-on-inmate sex in prisons, true or false?

There you go not understanding again.
Doesn't matter if it would.
You do not punish all for the actions of a few by going to an extreme to ensure it doesn't happen.

5. Inmate-on inmate violence of any kind currently occurs in state and federal prisons, true or false?

6. Segregation of all prisoners would eliminate all inmate-on-inmate violence in prisons, true or false?

There you go again still demonstrating you do not understand.
Doesn't matter if it would.
You do not punish all for the actions of a few by going to an extreme to ensure it doesn't happen.

7. Prison inmates are subject to gang activity of varying kinds, true or false?

Who? Which ones?
Depending on which prison system, not many.
Some states seem to have this under control, without resorting to extremism for all, like you propose.

8. Segregation of all prisoners would eliminate all gang activity in prisons, true or false?

There you go again still demonstrating you do not understand.
Doesn't matter if it would.
You do not punish all for the actions of a few by going to an extreme to ensure it doesn't happen.

9. Inmates are able to make new criminal contacts with other inmates while in prison that can continue after they are released, true or false?

Here is another example that you are taking to the extreme.
Rarely do you get them making plans in prison to team up and commit acts of crimes after they have been released.
Doesn't matter if they do.
They meet folks from all around their own state. Big deal.
Once released, birds of a feather flock together. Or in other words, those with similar interests will find each other. That is how it normally happens.
You do not punish all for the actions of a few by going to an extreme to ensure it doesn't happen.

10. Segregation of all prisoners would eliminate all new criminal contacts while in prison, true or false?

There you go again still demonstrating you do not understand.
Doesn't matter if it would.
You do not punish all for the actions of a few by going to an extreme to ensure it doesn't happen.

11. The conditions of Stage III segregation I listed are something most prisoners would prefer not to experience, true or false?

I do not know. I would assume most wouldn't, but then there is always the exception to the rule that some would absolutely love it.

12. It is possible that knowledge of such conditions might deter some people from committing crime, true or false?

In general, unlikely, as nothing serves as a deterrent.
That is not how the criminal thought process works. They do what they want to do.
Death penalty, not a deterrent. Which is why I also pointed out that the criminals in countries with harsher penalties are not deterred either.
It is not part of the criminal thought process. Which is just another thing you do not understand.​

And again!

You still have yet to prove let alone provided evidence to suggest, as I keep pointing out, that the inmates would not suffer under your stage III confinement protocols.

 

[Captain Adverse]

i have not asked you to prove anything that you have already proven.
Stop being dishonest.
If you believe so, it is because you are not paying attention like i keep telling you to.


You have not proved anything i asked, and therefore could not have ignored it.
Stop lying.

You still have yet to prove, as i keep pointing out, that the inmates would not suffer under your stage iii confinement protocols.


Stop lying. I have given you what you asked for, and addressed your issues.
It is you who have failed at justifying your idea.


More lies.
Your replies have been red herrings.


More bs from you i see.
This, as well as your other replies makes it clear that you sound like one.


We are not going to pretend anything.
Your pretending that your idea is good is what got you here in the first place.
It isn't a good idea.

:laughat:

How cute. You think you can dictate what is said.
:lamo
guess what?
You don't!


This is your problem for not paying attention, as much of the factual information is already admitted to.
it having been done so, does not make your ideas good either, nor do they justify going to an extreme as your idea does.

That is just part of what you are not understanding. Your extremism is not justified. Period. You do not punish all for the actions of a few.
Extreme measures of security and control, like supermax, is earned by the individual's actions. Not by all.
You seem to think that the lofty goals of reducing/eliminating violence (in addition to the rule violating "consensual sex") because it isn't supposed to occur, justifies your extreme measures. It doesn't.

Under your logic; violence is not supposed to occur in society either, so we should just lock everybody up, that way we can be assured it doesn't happen. Problem solved, eh?
that is as idiotic as your idea, which is why neither will ever be implemented.


You think this is a simple, "if a, then b" scenario, and it just isn't.
You want to go "if a", ignore everything else applicable, and then say "then b".
It doesn't work that way.
Your b, isn't justified. Not by the possible harm created, or by the costs.

It's like you think "if a, then b" is all that matters, when in reality, a whole lot more matters.

Which is why your following questions are idiotic.

i see you still are not getting it.
You can not state that number as a definitive by which the population incarcerated would be reduced.

Why?
Because many of those who are serving multiple sentences would still be serving under your idea of incarceration because they still had to serve for their other crimes.


In addition. You keep ignoring/or failing to address that society is not going to turn a bind eye to those non-violent crimes that involve the harsher drugs, let alone trafficking and manufacturing, which is deliberate criminal enterprise. Which makes your idea untenable and would reduce the figure the prison population would be diminished by.




Doesn't matter if it would or not.
What matters is if it is a good idea. As per the above answer, it just isn't a good idea, and is highly unlikely to occur.


Are you not paying attention? Yes it happens, and as stated, most is consensual.



There you go not understanding again.
Doesn't matter if it would.
You do not punish all for the actions of a few by going to an extreme to ensure it doesn't happen.



There you go again still demonstrating you do not understand.
Doesn't matter if it would.
You do not punish all for the actions of a few by going to an extreme to ensure it doesn't happen.


Who? Which ones?
Depending on which prison system, not many.
Some states seem to have this under control, without resorting to extremism for all, like you propose.



There you go again still demonstrating you do not understand.
Doesn't matter if it would.
You do not punish all for the actions of a few by going to an extreme to ensure it doesn't happen.


Here is another example that you are taking to the extreme.
Rarely do you get them making plans in prison to team up and commit acts of crimes after they have been released.
Doesn't matter if they do.
They meet folks from all around their own state. Big deal.
Once released, birds of a feather flock together. Or in other words, those with similar interests will find each other. That is how it normally happens.
You do not punish all for the actions of a few by going to an extreme to ensure it doesn't happen.



There you go again still demonstrating you do not understand.
Doesn't matter if it would.
You do not punish all for the actions of a few by going to an extreme to ensure it doesn't happen.


I do not know. I would assume most wouldn't, but then there is always the exception to the rule that some would absolutely love it.


In general, unlikely, as nothing serves as a deterrent.
That is not how the criminal thought process works. They do what they want to do.
Death penalty, not a deterrent. Which is why i also pointed out that the criminals in countries with harsher penalties are not deterred either.
It is not part of the criminal thought process. Which is just another thing you do not understand.​

and again!

You still have yet to prove let alone provided evidence to suggest, as i keep pointing out, that the inmates would not suffer under your stage iii confinement protocols.

IT IS CLEAR BY YOUR REFUSAL TO STICK TO THE POINT AND NOT TRY TO DERAIL THE ISSUE BY CONTINUED USE OF STRAWMAN AND RED HERRING FALLACIES THAT YOU ARE UNWORTHY OF FURTHER DEBATE! YOU CANNOT EVEN RESPOND TO A FEW SIMPLE TRUE OR FALSE QUESTIONS; INSTEAD YOU WAFFLE, MAKE EMOTIONAL COMMENTS AND AGAIN TRY TO BRING UP IRRELVANCIES.

You don't even understand the logical terms and fallacies you are using, and consistently use ad hominem attacks as if they were valid argument points. You are dishonest and your position has absolutely no merit. From this point forward you are on ignore. Have fun debating with yourself. :coffeepap

 

[Excon]

IT IS CLEAR BY YOUR REFUSAL TO STICK TO THE POINT AND NOT TRY TO DERAIL THE ISSUE BY CONTINUED USE OF STRAWMAN AND RED HERRING FALLACIES THAT YOU ARE UNWORTHY OF FURTHER DEBATE! YOU CANNOT EVEN RESPOND TO A FEW SIMPLE TRUE OR FALSE QUESTIONS; INSTEAD YOU WAFFLE, MAKE EMOTIONAL COMMENTS AND AGAIN TRY TO BRING UP IRRELVANCIES.

You don't even understand the logical terms and fallacies you are using, and consistently use ad hominem attacks as if they were valid argument points. You are dishonest and your position has absolutely no merit. From this point forward you are on ignore..

Still with the emotional bs I see.
Poor guy, doesn't like his opinion getting ripped to shreds.

Let me call the whambulance.

You shouldn't have misrepresented, made false claims and been dishonest to begin with.

I answered your questions, though you didn't answer mine.
You are upset because you do not get to dictate how they are answered. Tough luck.
As the answers clearly put your position into proper perspective.



And again!
You still have yet to prove, let alone provide evidence to suggest, as I keep pointing out, that the inmates would not suffer under your stage III confinement protocols.


And I care not if you place me on ignore as I can still respond to what you say.
And correcting that for all others is my concern, not you.

IT IS CLEAR BY YOUR REFUSAL TO STICK TO THE POINT AND NOT TRY TO DERAIL THE ISSUE
...

This was you going off on tangents that had nothing to do with what was said.

BY CONTINUED USE OF STRAWMAN AND RED HERRING FALLACIES THAT YOU ARE UNWORTHY OF FURTHER DEBATE![/U].

Wrong!
YOu were the one not addressing the legitimate issues that were presented.

You don't even understand the logical terms and fallacies you are using, and consistently use ad hominem attacks as if they were valid argument points.

Wrong!
You clearly are speaking about yourself again.

You are dishonest and your position has absolutely no merit. From this point forward you are on ignore. Have fun debating with yourself.

Wrong!
You were the one who was dishonest in there presentation and then even lied. As pointed out for all to see.


You have misrepresented information and outright lied about other.


You made a definitive claim yet have failed to establish your claim that the number incarcerated would be reduced by ¼ because you fail to take into account those serving for other crimes besides drugs. Which of course would be serving under you system.
This is your failure. Not mine.


The goals of total violence elimination is good.
But you obviously do not understand that doesn't mean your plan is good even if it achieves that goal.


And then you have failed because you still have yet to prove, let alone provided evidence to suggest, as I keep pointing out, that the inmates would not suffer under your stage III confinement protocols.




You have failed on all accounts.
There was no waffling, and the emotion is obviously yours.
There are no Red Herrings, Straw-men, or any other logical fallacies.
What I pointed out was relevant.



Your failure is not my problem, but yours.