http://www.greenleft.org.au/2003/565/29041

For once I am beginning to think Angela Davis is showing more intellegence than any other politician out there.

Yeah, instant death instead!:nice: :p Bullets are cheaper than prisons anyways.

What a complete nit wit!

We share the last name, OMG the shame.

Abolishing prisons is an idiotic idea.

Where are we supposed to keep people like Charles Manson, Scott Peterson, or any of the other thousands and thousands of violent criminals, rapists and child molesters??

Maybe we can send them to live with Ms. Davis.

Not too many centuries ago, the vast majority of prisons were nothing more than holding perns for condemned individuals awaiting execution. They have evolved into what we have today, and as bad as prisons are, in a free society they are a necessity, because freedom allows huge numbers of crimes to be easily comitted, and most criminals are never even caught, much less incarcerated.

An alternative would be greart, but I have yet to hear of one which would actually reform career criminals, especially sex offenders like pedophiles. the recidivism rate among these people is enormous, and we have to keep them away from the rest of society. I sure don't wantthose freaks wandering my neighborhood planning ways to abduct my kids, and i don't know anyone else who would support such an insane idea.

Abolishing prisons is an idiotic idea.

Where are we supposed to keep people like Charles Manson, Scott Peterson, or any of the other thousands and thousands of violent criminals, rapists and child molesters??

Maybe we can send them to live with Ms. Davis.

Not too many centuries ago, the vast majority of prisons were nothing more than holding perns for condemned individuals awaiting execution. They have evolved into what we have today, and as bad as prisons are, in a free society they are a necessity, because freedom allows huge numbers of crimes to be easily comitted, and most criminals are never even caught, much less incarcerated.

An alternative would be greart, but I have yet to hear of one which would actually reform career criminals, especially sex offenders like pedophiles. the recidivism rate among these people is enormous, and we have to keep them away from the rest of society. I sure don't wantthose freaks wandering my neighborhood planning ways to abduct my kids, and i don't know anyone else who would support such an insane idea.
I found several arguments you used which were based on false premises.

First, I happen to think that Scott Peterson may be innocent. At any rate he does not pose a risk to others.

Individuals like Charles Manson who exhibit socialpathic or perhaps psychotic behavior should be institutionalized until their violent behavior is corrected. If it means keeping them under care indefinately than that is what should be done.

Some anarchists have said that the best way to treat unincourageable individuals is to cast them out of society altogether into the jungle or desert. I do not think this is a practical solution however.

The very first prisons were actually for debtors. If you owed a debt and were unable to pay, you were sent to prison. Sometimes even prison colonies developed settled entirely by debtors, such as the colony of Georgia which is now a US State.

Finally, one item which was completely untrue. You stated that recidivism rates are high among sex offenders. This is totally false and there is no statistical data to prove it. In fact, those convicted of sexual crimes (if in fact they are even guilty, remember that a high percentage of such inmates were falsely convicted) have an extremely low recidivism rate providing that they undergo proper rehabilitative treatement while incarcerated. But lunitics like Bill O'Rielly, the "liberal" news media and political leaders love to make and issue of the supposedly lienient laws regarding sex offenders because they can get a great deal of political capital by doing so.

First, I happen to think that Scott Peterson may be innocent. At any rate he does not pose a risk to others. If he IS guilty (which I happen to believe he is) then how can you possibly say he does not pose a risk to others?


Finally, one item which was completely untrue. You stated that recidivism rates are high among sex offenders. This is totally false and there is no statistical data to prove it. In fact, those convicted of sexual crimes (if in fact they are even guilty, remember that a high percentage of such inmates were falsely convicted) have an extremely low recidivism rate providing that they undergo proper rehabilitative treatement while incarcerated. But lunitics like Bill O'Rielly, the "liberal" news media and political leaders love to make and issue of the supposedly lienient laws regarding sex offenders because they can get a great deal of political capital by doing so.Do you have anything to back up this claim?

If he IS guilty (which I happen to believe he is) then how can you possibly say he does not pose a risk to others?
Do you have anything to back up this claim?
GOD... If I could have a dollar for everytime I've had to post this....

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/collateral/research2.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm
http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/docs/sxoffend/page2.htm

Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.

The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release :|


Regarding the prevelance of individuals accused or convicted falsely of sex crimes do see....

http://www.geocities.com/jgharris7/witchhunt.html


OH.... and Scott Peterson? He was convicted of killing his wife. Statistics prove that people convicted of common murder have very low rates of recidivism.

Statistics prove that people convicted of common murder have very low rates of recidivism.Well i am sure that the small percentage of people who have had family members murdered by people who were convicted of common murder and then release only to kill their brother, sister, mother, father, son, daughter, etc. will take comfort in those statistics.

I hardly think those statistics show that he does not pose a risk to others

I don't think prisons should be abolsihed,I think they should be run more humanely.

One of the msot humane prison systems in the wrold is Isreal's.

I think they should all be put in a big commune next door to her insane ass .

I would put them all to work on chaingang , maybe then less rapes would happen, too tired to rape after hards days work .:nice: .

I don't think prisons should be abolsihed,I think they should be run more humanely.

One of the msot humane prison systems in the wrold is Isreal's.
Isreal you say? I would love to see some info on that one.

I have heard several human rights groups show concern over Isreal's treatment of Palestinians. Maybe its different for common criminals. I will need to look into that.

Maybe we can send them to live with Ms. Davis.That's what I was thinking.

I have a good idea. Let's find all the people who think we should abolish prisons and give them their own city. And, then put all the criminals in that city with them. I'll bet they change their POV real quick.

Individuals like Charles Manson who exhibit socialpathic or perhaps psychotic behavior should be institutionalized until their violent behavior is corrected. If it means keeping them under care indefinately than that is what should be done.How is that different than prison? If they're not free to go, it's just a prison with another name.

Statistics prove that people convicted of common murder have very low rates of recidivism.

They'd have NO "rates of recidivism" if they were executed!

And, I find it interesting that you feel so warm and mushy that this "low rate of recidivism" is so great until one realizes that you mean only a FEW more people will get murdered by the "low rates of recidivism" that murderers have.

Gosh, it ain't so bad, huh? I mean let all the "common" murderers out and we can all rest assured that they will only kill a few people once they get out. We should all feel so much safer.

All murderers should be executed. (self defense doesn't count for "murder" - murder has a specific definition)

Period.

Individuals like Charles Manson who exhibit socialpathic or perhaps psychotic behavior should be institutionalized until their violent behavior is corrected. If it means keeping them under care indefinately than that is what should be done.
*phew* Thank God I work in a State Correctional Institution. For a minute there I thought that you believed where I work is bad and you wanted to put me out of work. :nice:

:D

And, I find it interesting that you feel so warm and mushy that this "low rate of recidivism" is so great until one realizes that you mean only a FEW more people will get murdered by the "low rates of recidivism" that murderers have.

Gosh, it ain't so bad, huh? I mean let all the "common" murderers out and we can all rest assured that they will only kill a few people once they get out. We should all feel so much safer.You've got a good point there.

Despite the fact that accidental deaths of children cause by firearms is low (in the 100 range) and decreasing for decades, the gun-banning liberals still use it as a reason to take handguns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. "One dead child is too many". Ban inanimate objects until there is no accidental deaths....but make sure criminals roam freely. That's liberal logic for ya.

All murderers should be executed. (self defense doesn't count for "murder" - murder has a specific definition)Amen to that. I say throw rapist, child molesters and drug trafficers in with them too. How about death for anyone who uses a gun in a crime? I'd support that too.

Period.[/QUOTE]

That's what I was thinking.

I have a good idea. Let's find all the people who think we should abolish prisons and give them their own city. And, then put all the criminals in that city with them. I'll bet they change their POV real quick.

How is that different than prison? If they're not free to go, it's just a prison with another name.
No... because U.S. prisons as we know them are not placed of rehabilitation. Rather they are warehouses where human beings are packed away indefinately. Very rarely are inmates put through anything which remotely resembles a rehabilitation program. Rather they are places where inmates are subjected to beatings, rape and torture. Do you really think that in such places, people who are forced to endure that kind of treatment become better human beings?

I will tell you something else, I do not like the idea that someone who is legitimately dangerous can serve X number of years behind bars and get out whether or not this person has been treated for whatever makes them dangerous in the first place. I would prefer keeping a dangerous sociopath locked up until someone can determine that such an individual is not a threat to anyone else.

Rehabilitation?

They are places of PUNISHMENT! As they should be.

They'd have NO "rates of recidivism" if they were executed!

And, I find it interesting that you feel so warm and mushy that this "low rate of recidivism" is so great until one realizes that you mean only a FEW more people will get murdered by the "low rates of recidivism" that murderers have.

Gosh, it ain't so bad, huh? I mean let all the "common" murderers out and we can all rest assured that they will only kill a few people once they get out. We should all feel so much safer.

All murderers should be executed. (self defense doesn't count for "murder" - murder has a specific definition)

Period.
OH BOY we have a live one here!

Gee, so we want to have wholesale executions don't we! Hell, lets just kill em all and let God sort em out.

So tell me buddy, you say all murders should die. Now lets get very specific here, what do we want to define as this "specific definition" for murder. Will it be any premeditated crime of taking one's life? What about those urban vigilantes that the righties love so much? What about some cop who unloads their clip into an african immigrant who he mistakes for a sex offender (remember that case in NYC?)

Just where will you draw the line? And who will draw this line? :hmm:

No... because U.S. prisons as we know them are not placed of rehabilitation. Rather they are warehouses where human beings are packed away indefinately. Very rarely are inmates put through anything which remotely resembles a rehabilitation program. Rather they are places where inmates are subjected to beatings, rape and torture. Do you really think that in such places, people who are forced to endure that kind of treatment become better human beings? You're talking about reforming the system, not abolishing prisons altogether.

I don't have a problem with reforming the system.

Statistics prove that people convicted of common murder have very low rates of recidivism.Could that possibly be because they are spending the vast majority of the rest of their lives (if not their entire lives) in prison?

*phew* Thank God I work in a State Correctional Institution. For a minute there I thought that you believed where I work is bad and you wanted to put me out of work. :nice:

:D
Well I think we need to get off of symantics and get to what really happens in any institution.

I truely believe that talk is cheap. In California you have a "Men's Colony" (sounds like some kind of warm fuzzy place doesnt it?) in Chino which is really a prison. California does, incidently have some of the nations worst prisons. Even Arnold, right winger that he is recognizes the problem which is why he is building more prisons. Of course this is the wrong approach to the problem. The real solution is to release all non-violent offenders, experiment with home monitoring systems, legalize any form of consentual crimes, legalize and tax drug use and so on and so forth. And with the 50% or so who are in prison for violent crimes or crimes involving sex, focus on rehabilitation those inmates so that they don't come back after being released.

And don't worry Pony, if you need a job just ask and I will put in a good word for you at my place. Just no surfing porn on the company computer! :)

Now lets get very specific here, what do we want to define as this "specific definition" for murder. Will it be any premeditated crime of taking one's life?
Yes, I'd define it that way.

What about those urban vigilantes that the righties love so much?I'm not sure what you're talking about. But, I say yes. If it's a premeditated killing...execute them.

What about some cop who unloads their clip into an african immigrant who he mistakes for a sex offender (remember that case in NYC?)Is it premeditated?

You're talking about reforming the system, not abolishing prisons altogether.

I don't have a problem with reforming the system.
Yes and no. What do you think of when you use the word "Prison". Me I think of people locked behind cages.

But if you insist i would go on to say that prisons themselves need to change if they are to become effective for the rehabilitation of persons.

But to go on further, we need to understand that prisons are only part of the justice system.

I truely believe that after an inmate serves time in prison then he or she needs to be reintroduced into society. They must be educated. They need to find work. They may also need to deal with violent impulses and manage anger. In some cases they may have deep seated agression and pathological issues which need to be addressed.

This can be done not by stigmatizing such people, by posting their faces on a website, by burning down their houses or harassing them or their family. This can only be done by a system which is willing to take the time and resources to return these people to life outside the institution and allow them to become functioning members of society.

Could that possibly be because they are spending the vast majority of the rest of their lives (if not their entire lives) in prison?

I believe that those statistics referr to inmates after they are released.

Well I think we need to get off of symantics and get to what really happens in any institution.

You rail on and on about what needs to be done. All the treatment stuff you talk about is already being done. Take a look at some of the programs available (http://www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/cwp/view.asp?a=382&q=131834&portalNav=|). Liberal ideas have been implemented. The very same ideas have failed. Your ideas simply don't work and they cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money.

As far as revamping the system, keep dreaming. I'd like to see it done too, but, like rehabilitation, it'll never happen.

You rail on and on about what needs to be done. All the treatment stuff you talk about is already being done. Take a look at some of the programs available (http://www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/cwp/view.asp?a=382&q=131834&portalNav=|). Liberal ideas have been implemented. The very same ideas have failed. Your ideas simply don't work and they cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money.

As far as revamping the system, keep dreaming. I'd like to see it done too, but, like rehabilitation, it'll never happen.

I agree.
You cannot make anyone change, it comes from within themselves, and they have to want it, and work at it. There is no magical program to instill conscious into people.

This can be done not by stigmatizing such people, by posting their faces on a website, by burning down their houses or harassing them or their family.I didn't see anyone suggesting we should burn down people's houses or harass them.

As for putting their faces on web sites...I think the people have the right to know if their neighbors are convicted sex offenders. I don't think people have the right to harass those neighbors or damage their property.

I believe that those statistics referr to inmates after they are released.After spending a life sentence in prison most convicts are not in the same position to murder. Age tends to do that to a person. It is a lot easier to overpower someone and beat them up or do whatever they are going to do when they are 30 as opposed to 60.

Isreal you say? I would love to see some info on that one.


60 Minutes did a program on it.

Isreali prisons have humane conditions [way more humane that almost any U.S. prison] and no violence.


I have heard several human rights groups show concern over Isreal's treatment of Palestinians.


And I wonder how if these are legit human rights groups or shills for Palestinian terorrism?

ideal punishment for convicted criminals is isloation and separation from society...preferably on a remote island somewhere. modern prisons are as close as we are going to get i guess. fair enough. i always laugh when politicians go on about prison overcrowding and such....the usual solution being that we need less prisoners. build more prisons. they create jobs. and let's have no more of the sitting around in there. whatever happened to hard-labor? in the army, ne'er do wells were always reminded of the very real possibility of breaking rocks at leavenworth...it seemed to be a great deterrent for some.

Abolish Angela Davis says Andrew Davis.

You're talking about reforming the system, not abolishing prisons altogether.
I don't have a problem with reforming the system.

Then you and Ms Davis are in agreement, here is the relevant part of the article:

"The prison-industrial complex is much more than the sum of all the prisons in the country. Davis described it as a set of symbiotic relationships among correctional communities, transnational corporations, media conglomerates, guards' associations and legislative and court agendas.

Davis argued that prisons are considered so natural and so normal that it is extremely hard to imagine life without them. She argued that we must work to make prisons redundant by creating a radically more democratic and socially just society where retribution would no longer be seen as a means of achieving justice".

Then you and Ms Davis are in agreement, here is the relevant part of the article:

"The prison-industrial complex is much more than the sum of all the prisons in the country. Davis described it as a set of symbiotic relationships among correctional communities, transnational corporations, media conglomerates, guards' associations and legislative and court agendas.

Davis argued that prisons are considered so natural and so normal that it is extremely hard to imagine life without them. She argued that we must work to make prisons redundant by creating a radically more democratic and socially just society where retribution would no longer be seen as a means of achieving justice".

Nope.

My idea of "reform" is completely different than hers. Instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water, I'd like to look at where we can agree the prison system isn't ideal, and make a few minor changes and see how it goes. I'm not in favor of abolishing prisons altogether as Ms. Davis is.

Nope.

My idea of "reform" is completely different than hers. Instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water, I'd like to look at where we can agree the prison system isn't ideal, and make a few minor changes and see how it goes. I'm not in favor of abolishing prisons altogether as Ms. Davis is.

But..but...she doesn't SAY that, sure she wants Society to look at how and why people are sent to prison in the first place, arguing, not unreasonably that reducing the number of custodial sentences is a good thing.
I agree with you that the prison system (in the West generally) is in need of reform, certainy in the UK prisons built 100+ years ago have 3 men per cell designed for one, I don't want to give them Hilton conditions, but if you treat men as beasts, so they will become.
Not everyone in prison is evil, there are plenty of first timers in on minor charges (often drugs related) subjecting them to inhuman conditions (far worse than are permitted BY LAW for domestic animals) is merely breeding a new generation of sociopaths.
We can do better. We should do better.

i must say i agree mostly (but not wholly) with criminal. there is need for a prison or two, but not 33 in one state in the. alot of things which hardly qualify as crime (come on who does smoking some hash hurt) are being sent to prison which doesn't help but only make things worse

the media love to go on and on about how crime is rising and how the public wants crime tackled as gangs are ruling the streets but reality isn't backing this up. murder is out of control. in ireland t least, most of the murders & manslaughters are people like the above mentioned Peterson. the only threat he poses to people is to pregnant wifes of his and believe me, i doubt many women would be jumping at the opoportunity of being knocked up by him :D

i've gone off-topic

anyway, here, there has only been one party to say that we need less prisons, not more, there should be less people behind bars, not more. that is the Green party. they are the only one to see that crime isn't out of control, they are the only one living in the real world and not the newspaper world and that's why they'll be getting my vote in May or June

i'll end with lyrics from a song by the sub noize souljaz "i sing of peace and love, yet they want to lock me away for smoking a joinr"

what any of this post has to do with the topic, i don't know but i do know that prison system really needs reforming. to remember another thread by criminal, judges are going hard on minorities needlessly, the transgendered individual who criminal spoke of earlier should have been given community service not 18 years in prison or whatever it was

It won't happen in our lifetimes. I'm bored with this subject.

It won't happen in our lifetimes. I'm bored with this subject.


It hasn't happened in several hundreds of lifetimes and likely never will. If anything, it will get worse.

Yes and no. What do you think of when you use the word "Prison". Me I think of people locked behind cages.

But if you insist i would go on to say that prisons themselves need to change if they are to become effective for the rehabilitation of persons.

But to go on further, we need to understand that prisons are only part of the justice system.

I truely believe that after an inmate serves time in prison then he or she needs to be reintroduced into society. They must be educated. They need to find work. They may also need to deal with violent impulses and manage anger. In some cases they may have deep seated agression and pathological issues which need to be addressed.

This can be done not by stigmatizing such people, by posting their faces on a website, by burning down their houses or harassing them or their family. This can only be done by a system which is willing to take the time and resources to return these people to life outside the institution and allow them to become functioning members of society.



I believe that those statistics referr to inmates after they are released.


You're leaving out a huge part of the equation, and that is human nature, or to narrow it down a bit, criminal nature.

There are people who will never go straight because they don't want to, and all of the programs and money in the world won't change them one bit.

Our legal system is actually very lenient. Criminals walk away scott free every day. To actually go to jail for any legnth of time, an individual has to do something really bad, and usually have to do it more than once.

I keep hearing about drug offenders in prisons, but they don't lock them up and throw away the key on the first offense, unless it's a big offense. For small time users, it's usually probation, court ordered rehab, or something similiar.

The problem with court ordered rehab is, the people have no desire to quit using, and the people running the rehabs don't want them either. They know that most of those people are a waste of resources. AA meetings are held every hour, and people show up because the system told them to,, and for no other reason. The 96% failure rate of 12 step programs should tell us that it's a stupid approach to addiction, but we continue to force people to go through this ridiculous process with almost zero success.

I personally know lots of people who go to AA meetings drunk, or go get drunk after thay leave the meeting once they get their paper stamped. I know people who have had their own rubber stamps made and forge the papers.

Human beings are very clever, and addicts are some of the most clever liars out there. Social programs will never change that fact, and that's why we still have the same problems we had 100 years ago when it comes to drug use. The only difference is, most drugs were legal 100 years ago (heroin, morphine, cocaine etc.), and addicts just went about their business or eventually OD'd.

Now we even get junkies hooked on methadone (a morphine substitute invented by the nazis), and that's okay in the eyes of social do gooders, but it's harder to get off of than heroin is. I know because I've personally been on it for pain treatment, and the withdrawal is hell. That stuff builds up in the body and attaches to almost every tissue, including bones, but it's okay for junkies to stay on it for twenty years or more, because it isn't heroin.

The best way to keep people from prison is for fathers to be fathers to the kids that they create, instead of walking away and pretending that they don't exist. The number of fatherless kids who end up in jail for whatever reason is staggering.

The pathological, criminally insane people have to be warehoused, because they won't change. Charles Manson is still in prison because he's a lunatic and belongs behind bars. Rehabilitation is a waste of time on people like him. There are many others like him, and we have to put them somewhere.

prison should be replaced by a system of pecuniary and corporal punishment.

rob someone? either pay them back twice, thrice, or whatever specifications are put in place or work it off in a useful role for society (hard labour or whatever).

same would go for assaults, and so on. paying the victim back in goods or services.

more serious assaults, rapes, murders, and so forth would require the use of corporal punishment as well. loss of a hand, loss of a leg, death, and so on.

of course, plenty of victimless crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc) should be legalised. drugs, if regulated like tobacco & alcohol, could even serve as a good revenue stream for healthcare funding.

i should be king.

:D

Maybe Ms Davis is correct. But I think that as part of the release process, all 'former' prisoners must spend 3 months at Ms Davis's private residence as a half-way house. Maybe then she will come to realize that there really is a need for some people to be incarcerated. On second thought, why isn't she in prison, then they could just spend time in her cell.