When brutal prison rape is justified.

[Brendan]

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2277675,00.html

These two slimeballs thought that torturing a disabled woman was fun.

Here is to hoping they get raped so badly they need to use colostomy bags for the rest of their lives.

While they're at it, have a go at their parents who so obviously failed society in such a big way.

Maybe a bit harsh, but for some reason this pushed all the wrong buttons for me.

Edit: Apparently us stupid third world savages can't even get websites right :

Read the article titled " Teens torture disabled woman" on this (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Home/0,,2-10,00.html) page

[mystery]

Maybe a bit harsh.

Nah, these sorts of cases are the best argument against the death penalty. Proper punishment includes a deep, dark hole whose current sole inhabitant is a big lonely guy named Bubba who has absolutely no lubricant.

[magnet]

I don't know where kids these days get the idea that torturing is ok.

[Athryn]

These types of crimes make me feel sometimes that the parents of the children need to be also held responsible for the actions of the children they raised. I don't know if it would really be any kind of deterrent, but perhaps parents would pay more attention to teaching their kids right from wrong is they knew there were consequences.

[Nick Walter]

These types of crimes make me feel sometimes that the parents of the children need to be also held responsible for the actions of the children they raised. I don't know if it would really be any kind of deterrent, but perhaps parents would pay more attention to teaching their kids right from wrong is they knew there were consequences.


Or infanticide rates would jump up sharply. There's unfortunately ugly scenarios waiting to sicken you on every side when dealing with the harsh conditions of the most despairing, forlorn, and lost members of society.

[Rollory]

These types of crimes make me feel sometimes that the parents of the children need to be also held responsible for the actions of the children they raised. I don't know if it would really be any kind of deterrent, but perhaps parents would pay more attention to teaching their kids right from wrong is they knew there were consequences.

I've been of this opinion for a long time.

OTEdit: Brutal prison rape is not justified, ever. Not in a country that pretends to have rule of law.

[WarrenM]

OTEdit: Brutal prison rape is not justified, ever. Not in a country that pretends to have rule of law.
The hell it isn't. These two need to be removed from the gene pool.

[metta]

"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." -Dostoevsky

[JMR]

Oh boy I hate to sound like a FreeRepublic nut but I'm entirely in favor of shipping sick fucks like this off to Club Gitmo.

[Bahimiron]

The hell it isn't. These two need to be removed from the gene pool.

Then do so.

Torture for torture is never acceptable.

[Dirt]

Torturing them also makes them even more insane. Which puts the prison guards lives at greater risk.

[TheRock]

These types of crimes make me feel sometimes that the parents of the children need to be also held responsible for the actions of the children they raised. I don't know if it would really be any kind of deterrent, but perhaps parents would pay more attention to teaching their kids right from wrong is they knew there were consequences.

Disagree.

I was raised by a single mother who worked a lot and so who never really told me what to do very often. The reason I never did anything bad when I was young is that my peer group were all good guys. None of us drank, did drugs, stole, nothing bad. If I had been in a different peer group, who knows. We got transferred to a Middle School the last year before high school and it was hellish...fights all the time, kids doing drugs all over.....that stuff never happened at our school or in our neighborhood.

But, yes, parents definitely do have a factor in how kids act...my mom never abused me or screamed at me...so I didn't have any agression or anger to act out.

It's a tough discussion....so many factors play into it...but everyone is still an individual and I just don't think you can punish someone other than the actual offender.

[Rollory]

The hell it isn't. These two need to be removed from the gene pool.

Then judge them and sentence them accordingly. If they were sentenced to prison and not to whatever further punishment, then that is the sentence they should be forced to endure. If their crime is worthy of death, then the judicial system should produce that result. You can't go around changing the rules just because you're pissed off.

[Funkula]

Then judge them and sentence them accordingly. If they were sentenced to prison and not to whatever further punishment, then that is the sentence they should be forced to endure. If their crime is worthy of death, then the judicial system should produce that result. You can't go around changing the rules just because you're pissed off.

Bingo. The way we treat the most despicable among us reflects on our own moral standing. If we treat them barbarically, we are no better than they are. Being moral and civilized is about holding our own actions to the highest standards.

[TheRock]

Bingo. The way we treat the most despicable among us reflects on our own moral standing. If we treat them barbarically, we are no better than they are. Being moral and civilized is about holding our own actions to the highest standards.

And this is why we have a lot more crime than a lot of countries who treat their criminals barbarically.

[Kalle]

Here's a thought for those who think extrajudicial punishment is a-ok. Prison rape rewards the most brutal and violent prisoners by letting them dominate weaker inmates. The people who you think deserve it most are the ones least likely to suffer and most likely to benefit from the situation.

[Talisker]

And this is why we have a lot more crime than a lot of countries who treat their criminals barbarically.
Yeah, we need to quit coddling our prisoners, jail is way too easy in the USA.

[Jon Rowe]

-1 point in hope for humanity.

I like to side with Immanuel Kant on this one.

[Stratego]

And this is why we have a lot more crime than a lot of countries who treat their criminals barbarically.

We also have a lot more crime than a lot of countries that don't treat their criminals barbarically.

[Hanzii]

And this is why we have a lot more crime than a lot of countries who treat their criminals barbarically.

Like where?
I'm afraid that you'll find that most countries with a lower crimerate than the US also has more humane prisons. Ofcourse that's only correlation, not causation. But your notion is neither.

I'm sure Rollory and I could never agree on what proper punishment for these crimes should be. But I agree completely that punishment should be dealt out by the courts after a fair trail according to the laws... allowing bad things to prisoners after sentencing isn't the way it should happen in civilized societies.

Prison guards should run prisons (again according to law) not the inmates. Like Kalle said, that just leads to the worst offenders benefit.

[metta]

Like where?

Like. Uh, everywhere. The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and 30% of it's inmates. Are Americans just more criminal than other people? Of course not, but there is something very wrong with your judicial system.

[Athryn]

Like. uh, everywhere. The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and 30% of it's inmates. Are Americans just more criminal than other people? Or course not, but there is something very wrong with your judicial system.

It's our so called war on drugs, really. A majority of those imprisoned are drug offenders.

[Dirt]

Like. Uh, everywhere. The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and 30% of it's inmates. Are Americans just more criminal than other people? Of course not, but there is something very wrong with your judicial system.

I blame the war on drugs.

Oops. Repeat.

[Stroker Ace]

Yeah, hopefully our next president won't be on them.

[Dirt]

God or drugs?

[Adree]

http://www.bryantmcgill.com/bin/modules/mod_journal_volume/books/McGill_Collectibles/_images/torture-pear-87-1.jpg

[Demon G Sides]

Adree.

OW.

[Hetzer]

Like. Uh, everywhere. The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and 30% of it's inmates. Are Americans just more criminal than other people? Of course not, but there is something very wrong with your judicial system.

Hmmm i dont know exactly what you want to tell us... america has more criminals than the other modern democracies, you have the harshest laws in the modern world... perhaps going up to 40% of all inmates will help?

[Athryn]

http://www.bryantmcgill.com/bin/modules/mod_journal_volume/books/McGill_Collectibles/_images/torture-pear-87-1.jpg

The thing that fascinates me about objects like this is the decorative elements and craftsmanship that went into making the device.

[metta]

Hmmm i dont know exactly what you want to tell us... america has more criminals than the other modern democracies, you have the harshest laws in the modern world... perhaps going up to 40% of all inmates will help?

I'm not American. I wasn't posting that stat to boast. I was pointing out there is a problem. Athryn and Dirt understood just fine what I was trying to tell you.

[Hetzer]

I'm not American. I wasn't posting that stat to boast. I was pointing out there is a problem. Athryn and Dirt understood just fine what I was trying to tell you.

Ah sorry for misunderstanding you...

[metta]

Ah sorry for misunderstanding you...

No worries, mate :O}

[Tankero]

The thing that fascinates me about objects like this is the decorative elements and craftsmanship that went into making the device.

The intended purpose of the device is medical, but change the context and...

[unbongwah]

I don't know where kids these days get the idea that torturing is ok.
P&R derail in two!
I don't know if it would really be any kind of deterrent, but perhaps parents would pay more attention to teaching their kids right from wrong is they knew there were consequences.
I'm gonna hazard a guess that any teenager who thinks tying up an 18-year-old disabled woman (who has just had brain surgery), clubbing her, kicking her, shaving her head and soaking her with water before making her walk barefoot in the snow - for over six hours - is a good time needs a bit more than just extra face-time from Mommy & Daddy. There are bad eggs; and then there's just plain fuckin' crazy.
And this is why we have a lot more crime than a lot of countries who treat their criminals barbarically.
Actually, most crime rates (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm) have been in decline for the last couple of decades - except drug arrests (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/drug.htm), which have risen sharply. The number of people in prison (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.htm) for drug offenses has risen considerably, although violent offenders still make up the majority of the prison population.

Anyway, Rock, even if you were right, your statement would show correlation, not causation. Furthermore, implicit in your comment is the presumption that harsher penalties deter crime, when most research I've seen suggests it has little effect. [Or maybe you're just suggesting we execute more criminals so we have fewer repeat offenders? Which I guess technically would work...]
The thing that fascinates me about objects like this is the decorative elements and craftsmanship that went into making the device.
You've seen fancy corkscrews and wine openers before, right? Same aesthetic design principle, really: just because it's utilitarian doesn't mean it can't look pretty. Even torturers like having fancy custom shit to show off to their co-workers.

[Karen]

These types of crimes make me feel sometimes that the parents of the children need to be also held responsible for the actions of the children they raised. I don't know if it would really be any kind of deterrent, but perhaps parents would pay more attention to teaching their kids right from wrong is they knew there were consequences.

This is a cruel statement (which you probably have not thought that much about)

The best parents in the world can not do anything if the child is psychotic.

Even good parents can have "bad" children.

[Athryn]

Ah yes, time to put Athryn on the pillory! I'm such a cruel and hateful person because sometimes feel a certain way about an issue.

Of course there are just bad eggs, but the fact of the matter is that all too often, bad kids are the result of bad upbringing, whether it comes from phyical or emotional, neglect or actual cruelty or abuse. Since a child is too young to be treated as an adult, someone should be held responsible. If the kid is old enough to be tried as an adult, of course they should be held responsible for themselves.

If you have a psychotic kid, you get them help, you don't just let them loose on society so they can beat the shit out of someone defenseless. Children aren't an island unto themselves.

[SlyFrog]

Out of curiosity, should we let the male prison guards rape the teenage girl who was involved?

Or is prison rape only fun and okay for revenge when it is men raping men?

Are there any other situations in which we should hope a woman gets raped as retribution?

[NoWayJose]

Ah yes, time to put Athryn on the pillory! I'm such a cruel and hateful person because sometimes feel a certain way about an issue.

Of course there are just bad eggs, but the fact of the matter is that all too often, bad kids are the result of bad upbringing, whether it comes from phyical or emotional, neglect or actual cruelty or abuse. Since a child is too young to be treated as an adult, someone should be held responsible. If the kid is old enough to be tried as an adult, of course they should be held responsible for themselves.

If you have a psychotic kid, you get them help, you don't just let them loose on society so they can beat the shit out of someone defenseless. Children aren't an island unto themselves.
I know you have me ignored, but I'll post this in the hopes someone you're not scared of quotes it and maybe you'll learn a little something...

The fear of punishment (or retribution or consequences, or however you want to say it) is not going to turn a bad or neglectful parent into a good one. If your premise is that parents can be so neglectful as to create psychopathic monsters, then what can the state possibly do to make them better? They clearly have no interest in raising kids, and you're suggesting their new goal should be, "just try to make sure they don't kill or torture anyone." Then what? Parenting classes run by the local office of the Dept of HHS? Special door locks designed to keep the worst behaving kids in at night? Raising kids is really, really hard. If you have no inclination at all for doing a good job of it, you won't be cajoled into it. Instead, we'll just end up with more wards of the state as parents free themselves of the potential consequences of their offspring by freeing themselves of their offspring.

[Hanzii]

Like. Uh, everywhere. The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and 30% of it's inmates. Are Americans just more criminal than other people? Of course not, but there is something very wrong with your judicial system.


I agree there. And Unbongwah said it better.
Therock clearly implied that making punishment in the US harsher would get it done, when it's allready pretty harsh compared to the rest of the western world... with no results to show for it.

[Gordon Cameron]

I get bored with these threads where someone posts about a heinous crime so that we can all shake our fists and slaver and dream up brave tortures for the subhuman animals who did the dastardly deed.

Prison rape is a bad thing, notwithstanding what these people did.

[Dirt]

There's also the spread of HIV to think about.

[SpoofyChop]

Anybody that thinks Prison Rape is a suitable punishment for any crime is sadly mistaken.

Instead of sounding like an idiot why don't you send $20 to Stop Prison Rape instead.

www.spr.org

[bago]

Sanctioned torture is evil. Far more evil than unsanctioned torture.

[shift6]

Read the article titled " Teens torture disabled woman" on this (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Home/0,,2-10,00.html) page
Here's another link for those who, like me, couldn't get the above to work:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4344446&page=1

The idea that these two kids do not deserve immediate execution upon the exhaustion of due process is, frankly, unthinkable to me. While I believe that the current US Justice system does not possess the ability to give due process as it was intended, I have no problem saying that theoretically, The People aka society, has every right and responsibility to put them both to death. I'm appalled by anyone who could claim otherwise.

[Glenn]

The fear of punishment (or retribution or consequences, or however you want to say it) is not going to turn a bad or neglectful parent into a good one. If your premise is that parents can be so neglectful as to create psychopathic monsters, then what can the state possibly do to make them better? They clearly have no interest in raising kids, and you're suggesting their new goal should be, "just try to make sure they don't kill or torture anyone." Then what? Parenting classes run by the local office of the Dept of HHS? Special door locks designed to keep the worst behaving kids in at night? Raising kids is really, really hard. If you have no inclination at all for doing a good job of it, you won't be cajoled into it. Instead, we'll just end up with more wards of the state as parents free themselves of the potential consequences of their offspring by freeing themselves of their offspring.I'm not quite that fatalistic about it, but he's got a point. One of my law professors has argued in front of the Supreme Court a half dozen times, meanwhile his brother is (swear to god) a meth dealer that has spent roughly half his adult life in prison.

Kids are tricky, probably even more so when they're born with whatever defect causes them to be completely lacking in empathy.

[Qenan]

Eye for an eye logic. Didn't someone argue against that?

[TomChick]

I get bored with these threads where someone posts about a heinous crime so that we can all shake our fists and slaver and dream up brave tortures for the subhuman animals who did the dastardly deed.

Amen. These threads are pretty fucking pathetic. In fact, they're even more pathetic than the overshare relationship threads.

-Tom

[Funkula]

Well, I think this is the first one I've seen where someone has stood up and said, "Act like you're fucking civilized," so this one is better already. Typically I just pass em by but this is a heartening development.

[Bahimiron]

Amen. These threads are pretty fucking pathetic. In fact, they're even more pathetic than the overshare relationship threads.

If only this thread was the thread Gordon described rather than a thread where one or two people said 'rape rape rape!' and the vast majority of posters said 'god, no, prison rape is bad, torture is bad'.

[Jerry Sizzler]

For what it's worth, the boy's father claims that they have tried to get him help: (http://www.wlwt.com/news/15403663/detail.html)

"As parents, we have done everything in our power to turn Joseph around, including mental health counseling, family therapy, incarceration and commitment to the Butler County Juvenile Behavioral Rehabilitation Program."

[Brendan]

I generally avoid these sorts of threads but, like I said, this one pushed all the wrong buttons. Whilst I am against prison rape myself, sometimes the idea of a punishment to suit the crime is nice to contemplate in the heat of the moment. Let the perpetrators of a crime like this experience the terror they've inflicted first hand.

I also happen to think that prisons should not make life too comfortable for prisoners. Give me a Siberian labour camp over some comfy hotel type setting.

[AndrewM]

I also happen to think that prisons should not make life too comfortable for prisoners. Give me a Siberian labour camp over some comfy hotel type setting.

That Stalin... he had some good ideas.

[jpinard]

What frustrates me, beyond the fact anyone could think of doing something so horrible... is that we will be paying $35,000 a year to house these horrible people in prison. Prison needs to prison. They need to find a way to get that cost down to $5,000 a year per person. If it's horrible, and they never leave their cell. So be it. If they want entertainment, the library has lots o books and they can write poetry.

[Brendan]

The emotional backlash aside, in an idea world these two would be psychologically assessed to see whether they could be salveaged, and if so, they should be rehabilitated and spend the rest of their lives making financial payments to the victim. (If they are truly rehabilitated they would have no problem paying for it for the rest of their lives.)

If they can't be rehabilitated they should then be taken out to the back of the courthouse and get a bullet in the brain.

As it is, the prison rape fantasies are generally an outlet for people who feel that society is going to hell. The evil get to suffer and the hands of the public are clean since it is other violent dregs of society doing the raping.

[AaronSofaer]

I'm with the crowd on this one... prison rape is bad, the death penalty exists for a reason.

I'd be delighted if the penalty for raping someone in jail was your sentence being converted to solitary confinement for the rest of your sentence. Combined with actual guarding of jails and of inmates, I think you'd actually make an impact with that... certainly there would be no more repeat offenders if all the offenders were locked in solitary.

[Flowers]

I think those teenagers should be made to apologize and promise to never do such a thing again. I think they should also have to sit and think about what they've done, in prison, for the rest of their lives.

And I didn't even read the article.

[Johan O]

Ah yes, time to put Athryn on the pillory! I'm such a cruel and hateful person because sometimes feel a certain way about an issue.
...
You should write a note.

[Hanzii]

If only this thread was the thread Gordon described rather than a thread where one or two people said 'rape rape rape!' and the vast majority of posters said 'god, no, prison rape is bad, torture is bad'.


But then the idiots flocked right after your post and ruined your statistics.

[Rogen]

I get bored with these threads where someone posts about a heinous crime so that we can all shake our fists and slaver and dream up brave tortures for the subhuman animals who did the dastardly deed.

Prison rape is a bad thing, notwithstanding what these people did.

rape and torture is okay as long as it's for revenge amirite

[Aeon221]

I'm pretty sure we have a law somewhere about cruel and unusual punishment. Gee, I really wish I could remember where they put that one.

A lot of you seem to think that prison should be punitive. There have been numerous studies done that show pretty clearly that punitive treatment of criminals does nothing to prevent repeat offenses, and may even make them more likely by trapping those offenders in a poor situation when they do finally get out of jail -- hard as hell to get a decent job when you've got a past conviction staring your prospective employer in the face.

Prison should be rehabilitation -- criminals should be educated, fed, and shown that society is full of kind and caring people that really do want the best for them, even if they've fucked up real bad.

It kind of shocks me that I'm saying something like this on such a liberal board. Do you guys listen to Obama preaching about hope and redemption and change and then just throw that out the window when thinking about people whose shit is so fucked that they've turned to crime? Sheesh. If anyone needs a chance at redemption it's a thief or a murderer or a tax collector, not a bunch of middle class types whose daily problems include picking which game to buy next quarter.

What frustrates me, beyond the fact anyone could think of doing something so horrible... is that we will be paying $35,000 a year to house these horrible people in prison. Prison needs to prison. They need to find a way to get that cost down to $5,000 a year per person. If it's horrible, and they never leave their cell. So be it. If they want entertainment, the library has lots o books and they can write poetry.

You'd think someone in your condition would be wary of suggesting that the state find ways of spending less money on those that it deems cost it overmuch.

Or, in a less inflammatory way, have some compassion -- not everyone in there is guilty, not everyone in there is doing time for committing heinous acts on their fellow human, and nobody, not nobody, deserves to be treated like crap.

[marxeil]

..become cruel to the compassionate.

That said, due punishment should be administered by authorities and not by the local inmate judiciary board.

[bago]

Turn your other cheek before you say that mister.

[Rogen]

He who is compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate?

How the hell does that work? Even as platitudes go, that one is ridiculous.

Here, I've got one for ya.

"He who eats apples will ultimately be eaten by an apple."

No, wait

"He who drives on Sunday will eventually be killed in a hit-and-run accident on a Sunday. "

THINK ABOUT IT!

[Unicorn McGriddle]

The general idea, Rogen, is that those who empathize with the cruel will become cruel themselves. Or maybe it's that showing compassion to the cruel allows them to continue being cruel, which harms the compassionate, making those who are compassionate to the cruel indirectly responsible for their cruelty.

Either way, it relies on a Manichean moral dichotomy of good against evil, or in this case, cruelty against a compassion which is morally obligated to cruelty in countermeasure. This underlying worldview can be seen in the assumption that the cruel are immutably cruel, that reform is impossible and recidivism guaranteed. This is a popular position in America, especially concerning crimes that the public finds particularly shocking.

The existence of evil people, individuals who are biologically human yet irrevocable enemies of humanity, is a staple part of a certain seductive worldview that casts its bearers as the very special good guys who must do evil to evil. When gun enthusiasts discuss the tactics of practical firearms use against other people, a term they frequently use is "bad guy." Not some more neutral label like "opponent," or "target," or even "attacker" (although of course this last implies that the other party is guaranteed to be at fault). Recently, someone on this forum quoted a lengthy essay which classified the bad guys as wolves, the good guys as dogs, and the pathetic weakling rest of us who may one day evolve into a society worthy of their protection as sheep.

Morality plays are fun in the theater (spoiler: no they're not), but that's where they should stay, along with these Two Minutes' Hate recaps of assorted Horrifying Crimes Around the World.

[Kalle]

As it is, the prison rape fantasies are generally an outlet for people who feel that society is going to hell. The evil get to suffer and the hands of the public are clean since it is other violent dregs of society doing the raping.

Again, prison rape is a de facto reward for the inmates who are on the giving end and they're by definition the kind of inmates you by all accounts would least want to reward in such a fashion.

Letting the strong and most brutal rape and terrorise the weak is a recipe for fucking disaster.

[Rward]

I was reading a book about crime cases the other day and it had a case in India where a guy had raped and strangled about 100 young boys.
He was caught and put on trial.

The Jury ruled that he should be raped and then strangled to death.
Seems fitting.


Prisoners should be worked to within an inch of their lives.
Get those bastards out on chain gangs rebuilding roads, cleaning cities, building houses, Hard, Manual Labour!
Anything the government needs labour for.

They should be made to earn their keep. By the time they make it back to their cells they should have barely enough energy to eat their dinner and then sleep.
If theres no work - make them run around the yard all day, rain or shine, snow or hail.
Send them to war zones as meat shields, whatever.

Who are they that they deserve the same rights as normal people.
fukkem.

[deccan]

Recently, someone on this forum quoted a lengthy essay which classified the bad guys as wolves, the good guys as dogs, and the pathetic weakling rest of us who may one day evolve into a society worthy of their protection as sheep.

This story was funnier when it was told using dicks, pussies and assholes.

[Rollory]

Or maybe it's that showing compassion to the cruel allows them to continue being cruel, which harms the compassionate, making those who are compassionate to the cruel indirectly responsible for their cruelty.

That is it.

Earlier in this very thread there was a discussion of how sometimes no amount of parental involvement can prevent some people from just being total malevolent scum. There *is* such a thing as "bad people"; people whom the methods available to us simply do not reach. Now maybe theoretically it IS possible to rehabilitate every single criminally-minded person ever, but in practice there is no evidence that we are actually capable of that. So the question becomes where does one draw the line.

Recently, someone on this forum quoted a lengthy essay which classified the bad guys as wolves, the good guys as dogs, and the pathetic weakling rest of us who may one day evolve into a society worthy of their protection as sheep.

I am pretty sure I know which article you are talking about and it is one of the stupidest things on the net, by a guy who has far too much of a reputation when what he's actually doing is spouting nonsense, at great length. Please stop taking positions I agree with and go back to linking my posts to white supremacist positions. After all, I'm bad people, and I need to be exposed.

[Rollory]

I was reading a book about crime cases the other day and it had a case in India where a guy had raped and strangled about 100 young boys.
He was caught and put on trial.

The Jury ruled that he should be raped and then strangled to death.
Seems fitting.

Now what the hell does that accomplish?

Just put a bullet in him ASAP and get to work on repairing the damage done.

[Johan O]

I was reading a book about crime cases the other day and it had a case in India where a guy had raped and strangled about 100 young boys.
He was caught and put on trial.

The Jury ruled that he should be raped and then strangled to death.
Seems fitting.

...
Who carried out the sentence?

[bago]

Just put a bullet in him. A great solution exercised by psychos everywhere. Worked out great for Kyle Huff.

[Rward]

Who carried out the sentence?

I'm going to post the details when I get home..

[Rward]

Well, I read wrong - found it on wikipedia quickly ..

It was Pakistan, not India, and it was sexually abused, strangled and then dumped in acid to disolve the bodies.

The Judge (not jury) sentenced him to die by strangulation in the same public square he had frequented when searching for victims, and that his body should be cut up into 100 pieces and dissolved in acid.

Heres the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javed_Iqbal_(serial_killer)).

[baruk]

Anybody that thinks Prison Rape is a suitable punishment for any crime is sadly mistaken.

Instead of sounding like an idiot why don't you send $20 to Stop Prison Rape instead.

www.spr.org
Hear hear.

Donny the punk's story should be required reading for any advocates of prison rape as punishment or deterrent.
http://www.spr.org/en/news/pre2002/doc_01_answerme.asp

[Rward]

While this ball is on the roll:


"I say that the fact that Engelbrecht used tik on the day in question, indicates that he was not criminally responsible."

Full Story (http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2277856,00.html)
tik = methamphetamine

So on that basis - alcoholics that hop in a car and kill someone while on the way to buy a refill are not responsible either..?

I don't see how these criminals actually get people to represent them in court.

Line this guy up behind the OP's one and maybe we only get to use 1 bullet..

Sorry about the ranting but I'm feeling a lot better now, thanks.

[Hanzii]

Hear hear.

Donny the punk's story should be required reading for any advocates of prison rape as punishment or deterrent.
http://www.spr.org/en/news/pre2002/doc_01_answerme.asp

They'll probably just argue that his story is an outlier or that he brought it on himself.
... or that his case is sad, but in that magical world where we know without a shadow of a doubt that the prisoners are very guilty and very evil, what happens to them inide is totally deserved.

But of course the point made by kalle is repeatedly ignored. Those you guys most want to suffer are the ones doling out the extra curricular punishment. How do you punish them? As Johan O asked Rward 'who carried out the sentence'?
If you don't want the most violent offenders preying on the weak like in that story you'd need the guards to be the state sponsored rapists for your revenge fantasies to work.

[Bahimiron]

But then the idiots flocked right after your post and ruined your statistics.

Oh, internet!

[WarrenM]

Hey, fuck it, why even bother with prison then? Haven't these criminals suffered enough already?

[Johan O]

Hey, fuck it, why even bother with prison then? Haven't these criminals suffered enough already?
Yeah state run rapecamps or abolishing all prisons are the only two alternatives. Besides, if you deny the imprisoned rapists their traditional rapefests they will have all this pent up rapery waiting to wash over the flower of american masculinity the very moment they are released from jail, and then where will you be? Prisons are the great safety valve of American buggery, the way the navy was for the British before they got all buggered out. Man on man rape is what kept the empire strong, there is a strong correlations between the decline of institutionalised sailor rape and the decline of the empire. If you go the way of the British and crack down on nonconsensual buggery the American hegemony will soon be a thing of the past.

[Jon Rowe]

Yeah state run rapecamps or abolishing all prisons are the only two alternatives. Besides, if you deny the imprisoned rapists their traditional rapefests they will have all this pent up rapery waiting to wash over the flower of american masculinity the very moment they are released from jail, and then where will you be? Prisons are the great safety valve of American buggery, the way the navy was for the British before they got all buggered out. Man on man rape is what kept the empire strong, there is a strong correlations between the decline of institutionalised sailor rape and the decline of the empire. If you go the way of the British and crack down on nonconsensual buggery the American hegemony will soon be a thing of the past.

I am pretty sure that 90% of rape cases are not "rape lust" but more just like someone trying to get what they were unable to get. not raping for rape's sake.

[unbongwah]

Ah yes, time to put Athryn on the pillory!
I'm picturing you in a frock, standing in the dock before the Salem witch trials, with Bill D. as your lawyer, Tom as the judge, and the rest of Qt3 in the peanut gallery.

It made me chuckle, anyway. :-)

[Johan O]

I am pretty sure that 90% of rape cases are not "rape lust" but more just like someone trying to get what they were unable to get. not raping for rape's sake.
You seem to know an awful lot about rape.

[Demon G Sides]

I am pretty sure that 90% of rape cases are not "rape lust" but more just like someone trying to get what they were unable to get. not raping for rape's sake.


Sir, why don't you have a seat right over there.

[Athryn]

I'm picturing you in a frock, standing in the dock before the Salem witch trials, with Bill D. as your lawyer, Tom as the judge, and the rest of Qt3 in the peanut gallery.

It made me chuckle, anyway. :-)

I thought it was thematically relevant. :P

[SlyFrog]

No one has answered my question yet.

Should we require the prison rape of women as well? By men?

It's amazing that we never seem to discuss rape as an okay punishment for women in theses contexts. I wonder why, and I wonder what that says about it being acceptable as a punishment for men.

[WarrenM]

How about taking "prison rape" as a metaphor instead of a literal. That should help you along.

[Athryn]

No one has answered my question yet.

Should we require the prison rape of women as well? By men?

It's amazing that we never seem to discuss rape as an okay punishment for women in theses contexts. I wonder why, and I wonder what that says about it being acceptable as a punishment for men.

I don't think it's an acceptable punishment for either.

[Jon Rowe]

Man on man rape is what kept the empire strong,
Quote of the thread btw.

Also, I hope this post was in jest.

[SlyFrog]

How about taking "prison rape" as a metaphor instead of a literal. That should help you along.

Help me along with what? Also, can we use the metaphor with women?

"Gah, she killed that kid while drunk driving. I totally hope she gets raped."

[WarrenM]

Sly

You seemed to be hopelessly stuck on the literal words and I wanted to bump the turn table and move the song along.

[Rogen]

Yeah state run rapecamps or abolishing all prisons are the only two alternatives. Besides, if you deny the imprisoned rapists their traditional rapefests they will have all this pent up rapery waiting to wash over the flower of american masculinity the very moment they are released from jail, and then where will you be? Prisons are the great safety valve of American buggery, the way the navy was for the British before they got all buggered out. Man on man rape is what kept the empire strong, there is a strong correlations between the decline of institutionalised sailor rape and the decline of the empire. If you go the way of the British and crack down on nonconsensual buggery the American hegemony will soon be a thing of the past.

Hmm you may be on to something there.

[Rogen]

Sly

You seemed to be hopelessly stuck on the literal words and I wanted to bump the turn table and move the song along.

Yeah SlyFrog. When you read someone's opinion, you're not supposed to focus on the words. You'll never get anywhere that way. You need to pay attention to the feel of the post. Focus on the smell of the post. Rather than getting stuck on the words, you should be directing the nostrils of your mind to the odor of what the other person is saying.

I hope this helps.

[Bahimiron]

How about taking "prison rape" as a metaphor instead of a literal. That should help you along.

What exactly is 'prison rape' a metaphor for?

If we assume that prison rape of prisoners doesn't really mean that one of the prisoners forces the other one down and brutally penetrates him while his screams for help go unanswered, then what in the shit does it mean? What's it a metaphor for? Is it like in WoW when your guild downs a raid boss and you're all 'yeah, we raped him!'. Does it mean that instead of being forcibly sodomized in a way that doubtlessly leaves him humiliated, bloody and self-loathing instead twenty five virgins are casting spells at him? Is that what your metaphor means? Or is it more like in football when you say 'boy, the Giants really raped Tom Brady's defensive lne'? Are we just talking about, instead of a violent act of sexual degredaton, a scenario wherein the prisoner wanted to throw a ball but is instead tackled because his defenders were too busy picking their nose? Or is it more like when you go to the mall and there's a space you want to park in but it says 'No Parking' so instead of simply parking in it you drive you car in, then back it out, then slam on the gas and ram your car into it until both your car and the space are a ruined mess and then you're all 'dang, I raped that space! I prison raped it!'. Is that what you're talking about?

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Flowers]

What exactly is 'prison rape' a metaphor for?

If we assume that prison rape of prisoners doesn't really mean that one of the prisoners forces the other one down and brutally penetrates him while his screams for help go unanswered, then what in the shit does it mean? What's it a metaphor for? Is it like in WoW when your guild downs a raid boss and you're all 'yeah, we raped him!'. Does it mean that instead of being forcibly sodomized in a way that doubtlessly leaves him humiliated, bloody and self-loathing instead twenty five virgins are casting spells at him? Is that what your metaphor means? Or is it more like in football when you say 'boy, the Giants really raped Tom Brady's defensive lne'? Are we just talking about, instead of a violent act of sexual degredaton, a scenario wherein the prisoner wanted to throw a ball but is instead tackled because his defenders were too busy picking their nose? Or is it more like when you go to the mall and there's a space you want to park in but it says 'No Parking' so instead of simply parking in it you drive you car in, then back it out, then slam on the gas and ram your car into it until both your car and the space are a ruined mess and then you're all 'dang, I raped that space! I prison raped it!'. Is that what you're talking about?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Psychic...powerless... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic..._Powerless..._Another_Man%27s_Sac)

[WarrenM]

Is a metaphor a foreign concept or am I missing something here? It's not this hard.

[metta]

I am pretty sure that 90% of rape cases are not "rape lust" but more just like someone trying to get what they were unable to get. not raping for rape's sake.

In the U.S., The percentage of people raped in prison is almost the same as the percentage of people raped outside of prison. Rape is not about lust or sex, it's about power.

Dead men don't rape.

[Lunch of Kong]

Rape is not about lust or sex, it's about power.
I've heard people say this ever since that dumb movie with Michael Douglas and Demi Moore came out, and it's wrong. Power, sure, but rape is also about satisfying a sexual urge.

[Demon G Sides]

Yeah, I could just beat the shit out of people and feel pretty powerful.

[Mike O'Malley]

I've heard people say this ever since that dumb movie with Michael Douglas and Demi Moore came out, and it's wrong. Power, sure, but rape is also about satisfying a sexual urge.

There's a difference?

[Jon Rowe]

In the U.S., The percentage of people raped in prison is almost the same as the percentage of people raped outside of prison. Rape is not about lust or sex, it's about power.

Dead men don't rape.

I think you are arguing the same point as I am. I just worded my argument poorly.

People don't go around with some sick obsession of rape. They use it as a tool for the means of having sex with someone be it for the demoralization of someone, or the animal need for sexual contact. People don't suddenly have an urge to rape. Rapists have an urge for sex, or an urge to hurt someone, or an urge to assert their dominance, which rape is one tool to accomplish all three.

You generally don't have people walking around with the idea running in their head that they haven't raped anyone in a while so they are starved for rape. What they are starved for is sex, attention, or power.

[metta]

I've heard people say this ever since that dumb movie with Michael Douglas and Demi Moore came out, and it's wrong. Power, sure, but rape is also about satisfying a sexual urge.

Well, what can I tell you? Perhaps you shouldn't be listening to people who are taking their theories wholesale from pop culture. Do you have any credentials in this area? What is your background in sexual assault, or rape counseling, or any kind of social work?

My wife's doctoral thesis was about sexual violence. (It had to do with responsibility and pronoun usage, but that's too specific for this conversation.) And so, after six years of research and study, and 28 weeks spent in a court mandated sex offenders rehab program, and dozens of interviews while gathering data, and papers given, and books read, and experts consulted, it is clear to anyone who does more than just listen to some Michael Douglas fans, that rape is an act of violence and the central need being served is a power fantasy.

[Jon Rowe]

I think that eye for an eye is a perfect system, but in an imperfect world where due process is impossible to accomplish, we cannot employ a system like this. That is my stance on the issue.

Those boys should be tortured just as they tortured that poor little girl, if they did it. But as long as there is no 100% way we can be sure they did it, or that something was not there, the risk of torturing an innocent person is not there.

It all goes back to the idea of categorical imperative. People within a society abide by the rules that are morally set. Those people that act outside of those moral boundaries are saying that they believe that the boundaries are wrong. So, those boys were saying that torture is perfectably acceptable in our society. So, in their punishment, we can just follow the new rules they have created for our society by implementing a like punishment to theirs.

By torturing someone, they are saying torture is ok. By punishing them through torture we are just doing what they feel is acceptable. We are only following their wishes for society.

It is that simple.

But... again, due process, and the idea that adminstering torture as a standard is impossible, there are too many grey areas that our legal system cannot handle in that respect. So the best thing we can do is punish them what is fit for our legal system. Which is why I think the death penalty is correct, but an impossible dream. There are too many loopholes and grey areas for it to work. Along with the fact that if I think it is ok to have people killed, as long as there is .001% of the population that thinks it is wrong, I feel it is wrong to kill on their behalf, because it is death people, it is all or nothing.

[SlyFrog]

rape is an act of violence and the central need being served is a power fantasy.

We've had this discussion in P&R as well. I recall it because I think the theory becomes interesting in the light of the millions of rapes (and rapists) in wartime, each one apparently a power fantasy, as opposed to simply being an opportune time to nail some woman and get away with it with no consequences.

[Johan O]

I think that eye for an eye is a perfect system, but in an imperfect world where due process is impossible to accomplish, we cannot employ a system like this. That is my stance on the issue.

Those boys should be tortured just as they tortured that poor little girl, if they did it. But as long as there is no 100% way we can be sure they did it, or that something was not there, the risk of torturing an innocent person is not there.

It all goes back to the idea of categorical imperative. People within a society abide by the rules that are morally set. Those people that act outside of those moral boundaries are saying that they believe that the boundaries are wrong. So, those boys were saying that torture is perfectably acceptable in our society. So, in their punishment, we can just follow the new rules they have created for our society by implementing a like punishment to theirs.

By torturing someone, they are saying torture is ok. By punishing them through torture we are just doing what they feel is acceptable. We are only following their wishes for society.

It is that simple.

But... again, due process, and the idea that adminstering torture as a standard is impossible, there are too many grey areas that our legal system cannot handle in that respect. So the best thing we can do is punish them what is fit for our legal system. Which is why I think the death penalty is correct, but an impossible dream. There are too many loopholes and grey areas for it to work. Along with the fact that if I think it is ok to have people killed, as long as there is .001% of the population that thinks it is wrong, I feel it is wrong to kill on their behalf, because it is death people, it is all or nothing.
If everyone is entitled to act according to a rule defined by how the worst of us acts everyone would be entitled to act like an absolute asshole. I think you have gravely misunderstood the categorical imperative. And even if one bought into your reasoning, that their actions entitled you to act like they did does not automatically mean you should act like they did. Why is an eye for an eye a prefect system? Why should they be tortured? Is the only reason you can provide that they tortured?

You also manages to argue counter to your own argument "By torturing someone, they are saying torture is ok. By punishing them through torture we are just doing what they feel is acceptable. We are only following their wishes for society." If you believe this, shouldn't we not torture in order to not show people it is ok to torture? Why should we let their failed standards dictate how we act.

And finally I just wanted to requote
Which is why I think the death penalty is correct, but an impossible dream.

[NoWayJose]

I think that eye for an eye is a perfect system, but in an imperfect world where due process is impossible to accomplish, we cannot employ a system like this. That is my stance on the issue.

Those boys should be tortured just as they tortured that poor little girl, if they did it. But as long as there is no 100% way we can be sure they did it, or that something was not there, the risk of torturing an innocent person is not there.

It all goes back to the idea of categorical imperative. People within a society abide by the rules that are morally set. Those people that act outside of those moral boundaries are saying that they believe that the boundaries are wrong. So, those boys were saying that torture is perfectably acceptable in our society. So, in their punishment, we can just follow the new rules they have created for our society by implementing a like punishment to theirs.

By torturing someone, they are saying torture is ok. By punishing them through torture we are just doing what they feel is acceptable. We are only following their wishes for society.

It is that simple.

But... again, due process, and the idea that adminstering torture as a standard is impossible, there are too many grey areas that our legal system cannot handle in that respect. So the best thing we can do is punish them what is fit for our legal system. Which is why I think the death penalty is correct, but an impossible dream. There are too many loopholes and grey areas for it to work. Along with the fact that if I think it is ok to have people killed, as long as there is .001% of the population that thinks it is wrong, I feel it is wrong to kill on their behalf, because it is death people, it is all or nothing.

Tom, please raise the age limit.

[Jon Rowe]

I am sorry that my opinion differs from you, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a valid argument. I am no philosopher, nor a great debater, but I will try to address some concerns.

Johan, you said that we should not torture people to show that it is bad to torture. What I am saying is that it is unfair and unjust for us to treat people different than they feel they should be treated. By torturing someone, and simply through that act, they are saying that torture is O.K. And us not torturing them would be going against their opinions. We should respect everyone's opinion.

Now, the key here is that we have a horrible act to commit as a society. Torturing someone as a punishment for their act of torture. That is our society committing torture. But we have to look as our society as not a person, and as a governing body absolved from personal responsibilities and codes of conduct. This is how our government can be run.

For this theory to work, and for us to feel good about it we need to take it one step further. I was staunchly against this kant-ian viewpoint before this was explained to me.

We are completely absolved of any guilt in torturing the torturers. If we set the precedent that torturing someone = torturing yourself, than people will have no more gap between the act and the punishment. If someone commits a rape, they are in fact condemning themselves to being raped in the future. Simply by committing this act of rape, they are trying and convicting themselves of rape, where the punishment is rape. We are not raping them, they are raping themselves.

Our punishment of raping the raper is just following through on their action. It is putting the punishment right after the crime.

And until you understand that connection, this theory of social conduct makes no sense.

I am sorry if it is hard to understand what I am trying to say, but I am not a very eloquent person when it comes to words, I am more of a speaker-type of person.

[Mike O'Malley]

Beautifully passive-aggressive.

[Lizard_King]

See, Gordon, *that's* what college failing you looks like.

[Dirt]

And eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

That's some really adavistic thinking.

[Jon Rowe]

It is a cool little theory that absolves the government from doing any horrible acts. But, it only works if we can prove 100% that the act was committed. Minority Report anyone?

[magnet]

I was staunchly against this kant-ian viewpoint before this was explained to me.

How does your messed up society deal with highway speeders? Pot smokers? Exhibitionists? Subway gropers?

A Kantian duty is based on rational, not self-defeating, universal application. Your viewpoint is retarded and fails the first test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Perfect_duty).

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I am sorry that my opinion differs from you, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a valid argument. I am no philosopher, nor a great debater, but I will try to address some concerns.

Johan, you said that we should not torture people to show that it is bad to torture. What I am saying is that it is unfair and unjust for us to treat people different than they feel they should be treated. By torturing someone, and simply through that act, they are saying that torture is O.K. And us not torturing them would be going against their opinions. We should respect everyone's opinion.

Now, the key here is that we have a horrible act to commit as a society. Torturing someone as a punishment for their act of torture. That is our society committing torture. But we have to look as our society as not a person, and as a governing body absolved from personal responsibilities and codes of conduct. This is how our government can be run.

For this theory to work, and for us to feel good about it we need to take it one step further. I was staunchly against this kant-ian viewpoint before this was explained to me.

We are completely absolved of any guilt in torturing the torturers. If we set the precedent that torturing someone = torturing yourself, than people will have no more gap between the act and the punishment. If someone commits a rape, they are in fact condemning themselves to being raped in the future. Simply by committing this act of rape, they are trying and convicting themselves of rape, where the punishment is rape. We are not raping them, they are raping themselves.

Our punishment of raping the raper is just following through on their action. It is putting the punishment right after the crime.

And until you understand that connection, this theory of social conduct makes no sense.

I am sorry if it is hard to understand what I am trying to say, but I am not a very eloquent person when it comes to words, I am more of a speaker-type of person.

I was going to bold the worst parts and add "this speaks for itself," but halfway through I realized that I was bolding everything. Quoted for posterity, because this is motherfucking magic. Well done, rape guy.

[Drastic]

How does your messed up society deal with highway speeders?

Prison rape!

Pot smokers?

Prison rape!

Exhibitionists?

Prison rape!

Subway gropers?

Misdemeanor charge and a fine. Followed by prison rape.

This might seem draconian, but bear in mind that I'm speaking metaphorically.

[magnet]

I see where you get your name!

P.S. to Jon_Danger:

Amazingly, Kant foresaw that one day he would be misinterpreted by the likes of you!

But what is to be done in the case of crimes that cannot be punished by a return for them because this would be either impossible or itself a punishable crime against humanity...for example, rape as well as pederasty or bestiality?

[SlyFrog]

I am sorry if it is hard to understand what I am trying to say, but I am not a very eloquent person when it comes to words, I am more of a speaker-type of person.

No, your words are fine. Further, what you are saying is not so incredibly far removed from sane as everyone here tries to make it. But that is just the nature of an internet board like this.

However, I do think you are very wrong with your theory, and it would have horrible consequences. It would also be unworkable, as others have pointed out (again, unless you want to hire state employee professional rapists).

Actually, the more I think about it, how would you actually do the full "eye for an eye" thing with something like rape. What if the rapist actually enjoyed being "raped" himself? What if the crime was fondling a 12 year old girl? Would you have some 12 year old girl fondle the rapist?

[Bahimiron]

I've seen a few mentions of SPR on here recently. While I'm sure visiting their site would answer all my questions, I'm internet lazy and the moment I change tabs I forget what I'm doing. I blame Digg. Anyway, what is it that SPR does with a donor's money to put a stop to prison rape? Is it just legal action, or is there some kind of prison guard education they put together or is it all just hopeful activism?

[Jon Rowe]

How does your messed up society deal with highway speeders? Pot smokers? Exhibitionists? Subway gropers?


I did say it wasn't going to work. I just thought it was a cool idea. I am not really messing his ideas up, they are not exactly verbatim what he talked about, but what I was told was the kant-ian viewpoint in an ethics class. Maybe I was taught the wrong thing.

While I think the Kant-ian viewpoint is an interesting one, I still have trouble getting over my hippy love everyone feelings.

[Bahimiron]

Maybe I was taught the wrong thing.

You were. The Categorical Imperative, in its first form, pretty explicitly states that any law which fails once fails the 'test' of the Categorical Imperative. We have an imperative to act only by maxims which do not create contradictions if they were made universal. While Kant does call for punishments that fit the crime, he considered torture moral contamination. Even if someone was a torturer to torture them in return would lower anyone who did said torture. While he was pro death penalty, on the idea of prison rape, this quote would likely apply: "<A condemned prisoner's death> must be kept free from all maltreatment that would make the humanity suffering in his person loathsome or abominable."

[jpinard]

I'm pretty sure we have a law somewhere about cruel and unusual punishment. Gee, I really wish I could remember where they put that one.

A lot of you seem to think that prison should be punitive. There have been numerous studies done that show pretty clearly that punitive treatment of criminals does nothing to prevent repeat offenses, and may even make them more likely by trapping those offenders in a poor situation when they do finally get out of jail -- hard as hell to get a decent job when you've got a past conviction staring your prospective employer in the face.

Prison should be rehabilitation -- criminals should be educated, fed, and shown that society is full of kind and caring people that really do want the best for them, even if they've fucked up real bad.

It kind of shocks me that I'm saying something like this on such a liberal board. Do you guys listen to Obama preaching about hope and redemption and change and then just throw that out the window when thinking about people whose shit is so fucked that they've turned to crime? Sheesh. If anyone needs a chance at redemption it's a thief or a murderer or a tax collector, not a bunch of middle class types whose daily problems include picking which game to buy next quarter.



You'd think someone in your condition would be wary of suggesting that the state find ways of spending less money on those that it deems cost it overmuch.

Or, in a less inflammatory way, have some compassion -- not everyone in there is guilty, not everyone in there is doing time for committing heinous acts on their fellow human, and nobody, not nobody, deserves to be treated like crap.

I wondered if someone would call me on this, and I should have explained further. Violent criminals should be housed in facilities that cost way less, not more.

The government spends a pittance on innocent and good Americans who have never hurt a soul, and are born with disabling conditions. I have a friend bron with CF and she was not able to work past the age of 22 because of her disease. She gets $200 a month for living. Let me spell that out. The government helps her out a whopping $2,400 a year for being disabled at a young age.

The average cost to house a prisoner is $35,000, and at high security prisons it costs upwards of $40,000 per prisoner. Those violent (guilty) felons have healthcare, food, housing, etc.

Where is the justice in this country when our government spends so much more on prisoners than those who were born with genetic diseases?

What's more? When Bush gave the tax breaks to the wealthiest classes of people? My tiny disability income (which ironically is TAXED), my disability (and many people on disability) our taxable amount went up.

So yes, I have tons of compassion - but it's for those that have tried to be good people through their lives and have suffered through no fault of their own... nearly abandoned by a system that penalizes the few because of those that take advantage (those that take advantage of the system).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003463833_faked06.html

http://www.tscl.org/NewContent/100083.asp

[NoWayJose]

We don't house violent criminals in facilities that cost less because we're not barbaric. I'm not sure what else I can say to convince you beyond that. We actively and purposefully do not lower ourselves as a society to the level of the worst among us. Maybe you're looking to live in a different country?

[Machfive]

The problem with our judicial system stems from the inability for it to decide if it is a punitive or rehabilitative system, or both.

I would argue that it needs to be both, but it's trying to be rehabilitative and just ends up being punitive, and as a result, it ends up causing almost as much harm as it was trying to prevent.

I believe we need to ask ourselves with every criminal, "Is there any way for these people to redeem themselves? Could they, at some point, be productive members of society, or at least live lives which have no negative effect? Or have they, by their actions, forfeited their right to exist in our civilized world?"

If it's the former, if there's any shred of a chance that the criminal could be rehabilitated, with a healthy dose of psychiatric care, medication, education, and time to think about one's crimes, then they should be housed in a facility which can properly rehabilitate them. They should certainly earn their keep, though, so it would serve dual purposes to teach them a trade and employ them inside prison work camps to help offset the cost of their rehabilitation.

There are those criminals, however, whose crimes are so heinous, display such a deficiency of humanity, or are so utterly unredeemable that they instantly forfeit any right to exist among us. No one has the right to prematurely terminate the life of another human being, so for these prisoners, Supermax becomes the best option. None of that cushy Supermax either, I'm talking borderline solitary confinement. You don't give them a chance to interact with other prisoners, you feed them in their cells, you take them to the shower one by one, you let them out for 30 to 60 minutes a day in a bare field to stretch their legs. No comforts, no books, no writing implements, just a three hots and a cot, no more, no less.

[TomChick]

There are those criminals, however, whose crimes are so heinous, display such a deficiency of humanity, or are so utterly unredeemable that they instantly forfeit any right to exist among us.

You just invented that in your own head. There is no such clause in our legal system. Thankfully, this country has taken a higher road than the simplistic, small-minded, petty, and misguided judicial fantasies you, Jon Danger, and jpinard are spouting.

-Tom

[extarbags]

Where is the justice in this country when our government spends so much more on prisoners than those who were born with genetic diseases?


They're not connected unless you can point me to a proposed bill to dramatically increase aid to the disabled that was shot down in committee because it wouldn't leave enough money to take care of prisoners. Yeah, it's a damned shame that tragic health problems so often also become tragic financial problems... I feel for you, man, I really do. But your anger is misplaced; prisoners don't have to be treated like subhuman scum in order for you to be well taken care of by your government. It's not one or the other; nobody has to be treated like subhuman scum.

[Raife]

This thread may actually be dumber than the one Rogen made about dating Dennis Kucinich. Well done, Brendan.

[Machfive]

You just invented that in your own head. There is no such clause in our legal system. Thankfully, this country has taken a higher road than the simplistic, small-minded, petty, and misguided judicial fantasies you, Jon Danger, and jpinard are spouting.

-Tom

I agree there is no such clause, what I'm saying is that there needs to be. We need to admit that there are some people who we need not waste our time and money attempting to rehabilitate, and whose presence among redeemable prisoners would be counter-productive to the goal of rehabilitation.

I'm not saying torture them, and I'm expressly against the death penalty. But the Steven Grants and Jeffrey Dahmers are not going to get better, are guilty many times beyond a reasonable doubt, and will never be able to contribute a single thing to society. Why not completely separate them from the mainstream prison system and call it a day?

[Jon Rowe]

You just invented that in your own head. There is no such clause in our legal system. Thankfully, this country has taken a higher road than the simplistic, small-minded, petty, and misguided judicial fantasies you, Jon Danger, and jpinard are spouting.

-Tom

At least we can all agree that the justice system in this country is rather messed up.

[Machfive]

Tom, since I'm all wrapped up in "misguided judicial fantasies," I would just like to reemphasize this point and ask what you think our prison system currently is, and if that is the best way for it to be.

The problem with our judicial system stems from the inability for it to decide if it is a punitive or rehabilitative system, or both.

[TomChick]

Why not completely separate them from the mainstream prison system and call it a day?

Firstly, you might want to acquaint yourself with the way the prison system actually works. Solitary confinement is an integral part of how incarceration works. Also, you must be utterly tickled with Dahmer's fate, huh? Does it make you want to dance a little jig? Okay, low blow. Sorry...

Secondly, there's no consensus as to whether prison is punitive or for rehabilitation, so neither school of thought drives the US prison system. Thirdly, we don't do that because our justice system isn't run by kneejerk simpletons* proudly proclaiming their righteous indignation by burbling on about what terrible things we should do to terrible people.

The reason we don't do the stuff you, jpinard, and Jon Danger (am I missing anyone?) are suggesting is because our country is better than that. Because among the rights extended to our citizens** are due process and humane treatment. Anyone who suggests otherwise should be ashamed of himself. It's a cornerstone not just of our country, but of civilization, and it's a sad day when otherwise reasonable people forget that.

-Tom

* I'm not saying that's you, Machfive, since I kind of know you and you're better than this thread makes you out to be. But I would consider that an apt description of some of the people in these kinds of idiotic threads.

** Unfortunately, this Administration hasn't seen fit to extend those rights universally.

[Jon Rowe]

The crux of the matter is whether or not you think that terrible people should have terrible things done to them. I presented an idea that takes this idea and runs with it. It is impossible to implement, and just one way of thinking (that I really am not 100% behind, but I was playing a bit of devil's advocate) about the problem. I must re-iterate that the most interesting aspect of this viewpoint is that our country is absolved of any responsibility in this respect. We are not doing anything as a country in this idea. You have to push out of your mind the actual punishments, and just think of the criminals as self-abusers, and that the state is the only way to adminish punishment.

Anyhoo, I think we should let this baby rest.

[Machfive]

Tom, we've had some disagreements in the past about some really fucking inane stuff (28 Weeks Later comes to mind), so I'm a little weirded out by the vigor that you're coming at me with here. I think you're completely mischaracterizing my position, and I'm not sure whether it's because you misunderstand my position, or because of the assumptions you're making about my position.

Firstly, you might want to acquaint yourself with the way the prison system actually works. Solitary confinement is an integral part of how incarceration works.

I'm pretty well acquainted with the prison system in the US. And I'm more than familiar with how there are cases of people being able to order hits on other prisoners, and obtain all sorts of perks, even while in solitary confinement. It's but one aspect of the complete and utter failure of our prison system as a whole that there are actually criminals inside prison who wield almost as much power as when they were out of prison.

Also, you must be utterly tickled with Dahmer's fate, huh? Does it make you want to dance a little jig? Okay, low blow. Sorry...

You should be sorry, because what happened to Dahmer is one of the many things that's wrong with our prison system. This is one of those assumptions that I'm not understanding. I don't think Dahmer should have died in prison. I don't think Dahmer should have been potentially raped in prison (I assume he was at some point). I'll explain later what I think is befitting of these sorts of inmates who are so definitively guilty that some among us (not me, as I've long stated) actually wish bodily harm and death upon them.

Secondly, there's no consensus as to whether prison is punitive or for rehabilitation, so neither school of thought drives the US prison system.

Thank you. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Our prison system doesn't know what the hell it is. The bleeding hearts claim that prison is for rehabilitation, pointed to the availability of educational materials, work programs, and psychological assistance. Then there are those among us who think prison is punitive, and point to the fact we still have a death penalty, we look the other way or even encourage violence amongst prisoners, and make no effort to combat violence by prison staff.

Although it's almost impossible to know for sure, I think our high recidivism rate stems from the fact that more criminals come out even more hardened and dysfunctional than when they went in, because ultimately, our current prison system is punitive.

Frankly, I see that as a big problem.

Thirdly, we don't do that because our justice system isn't run by kneejerk simpletons* proudly proclaiming their righteous indignation by burbling on about what terrible things we should do to terrible people.

Please quote where I suggested we do anything terrible to anyone.

Because among the rights extended to our citizens** are due process and humane treatment.

Please point out where I suggested that anyone not receive a fair trial, the right to appeal, and the right to what is necessary to comfortably sustain life.

Anyone who suggests otherwise should be ashamed of himself. It's a cornerstone not just of our country, but of civilization, and it's a sad day when otherwise reasonable people forget that.

-Tom


I hope everyone could agree with that.

I believe in the rights of the individual first, and those of the "greater good" second. The phrase "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins," is perhaps one of the most important tenets of my personal belief structure.

So make no mistake that I believe that there is no situation where the interests of justice are advanced by sanctioned or unsanctioned torture or execution.

It is also my belief that there is a compact between every individual and society that says when you have abused your individual rights so greatly you have forfeited your rights in the society.

Now, where the line is drawn is certainly debatable. I don't think every murderer is necessarily beyond saving. Crimes of passion, crimes under extreme emotional disturbance, those who've committed crimes like these offer but the necessary glimmer of hope that someday, they might be able to re-enter society.

But the Dahmers, the Stephen Grants, the Wayne Dumonds, and their ilk, who have abused their individual rights and infringed repeatedly and horribly upon the rights of others, these people do not deserve a second chance. They do not deserve torture, they do not deserve death, they deserve simply to be as far removed from society as is possible. We should feed them, keep them healthy, give them all the things their bodies physically need to survive and even thrive, so that they may live a long and full lifetime completely and utterly devoid of human contact and mental stimulation as can be realistically maintained.

I do not see that as cruel and unusual, and if you consider it so, I would love to know why.

[TomChick]

Machfive, I'm glad to see your position seems to be more nuanced than what you wrote above, which is what I was responding to. Namely:

There are those criminals, however, whose crimes are so heinous, display such a deficiency of humanity, or are so utterly unredeemable that they instantly forfeit any right to exist among us.

Because I consider that ("instantly forfeit any right to exist among us"?) as foolish as all the stupid stuff about how we should let terrible people get raped, how we should line them up so we only have to use one bullet, or how we should let African fire ants eat out their eyeballs. I'm pretty sure all those things have been suggested in these threads.

It is also my belief that there is a compact between every individual and society that says when you have abused your individual rights so greatly you have forfeited your rights in the society.

Fortunately, that's not how our country works. Instead, we have something called due process, by which certain rights can be stripped, but within limits.

We should feed them, keep them healthy, give them all the things their bodies physically need to survive and even thrive, so that they may live a long and full lifetime completely and utterly devoid of human contact and mental stimulation as can be realistically maintained.

Plus, we should let African fire ants eat out their eyeballs!

-Tom

[NoWayJose]

Although it's almost impossible to know for sure, I think our high recidivism rate stems from the fact that more criminals come out even more hardened and dysfunctional than when they went in, because ultimately, our current prison system is punitive.

But the Dahmers, the Stephen Grants, the Wayne Dumonds, and their ilk, who have abused their individual rights and infringed repeatedly and horribly upon the rights of others, these people do not deserve a second chance.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. Are you, machfive? It seems to me on one hand you're saying allowing criminals to intermingle as in our current system results in recidivism and more violent crimes (committed by the "more hardened and dysfuntional" criminals produced in prison). On the other, you're saying only the most depraved and inhuman of prisoners should be kept in solitary with no human contact for the remainder of their lives. So what do we do with all the rapists, killers, robbers, car thieves, drug dealers, etc. who assumedly have not forfeited their rights to exist in our society (by your as yet undefined metric)?

[DavidKaye]

http://i28.tinypic.com/2ypjkmq.gif

[Hanzii]

But the Dahmers, the Stephen Grants, the Wayne Dumonds, and their ilk, who have abused their individual rights and infringed repeatedly and horribly upon the rights of others, these people do not deserve a second chance. They do not deserve torture, they do not deserve death, they deserve simply to be as far removed from society as is possible. We should feed them, keep them healthy, give them all the things their bodies physically need to survive and even thrive, so that they may live a long and full lifetime completely and utterly devoid of human contact and mental stimulation as can be realistically maintained.

I do not see that as cruel and unusual, and if you consider it so, I would love to know why.

Uhm, there's plenty of research on what solitary confinement over a longer period does to a human. It's not healthy and Amnesty International label it torture - whether the research is clear cut enough to deem it cruel and unusual as defined by you or your superior court is another matter. But you won't find any experts on the matter claiming it's good for the mind or even harmless.

I live in a country with a much more humane prison system (and much lower crime rates) but the police is overusing solitaire confinement and there's been plenty of examples of people who'd have preferred the eyeball eating fire ants.

People like the ones you describe is what the death penalty is for and it's a more humane end than what you're suggesting. I'm personally against the death penalty because I don't trust the courts with that kind of power... but in theory I would be for it for people like that.

[Anders Hallin]

Now, I know Nils Christie is a dirty hippie, but it might be interesting to hear viewpoint of someone who began his career interviewing concentration camp guards:
I have worked in criminology for most of my long adult life. I have met people sentenced for all sorts of unacceptable acts, from killing to cheating. But I have never met a monster. I have never met one where I cannot find some common ground. With patience, the anti-killer appears, the person who is fond of someone, somewhere. The challenge is to come close enough to be able to see.

Distance makes killing and torture possible. This is one of the major findings from studies of extermination camps as well as from psychological experiments. Distance makes it possible to loose sight of the victim as an ordinary human being. But the same mechanism is of course at play when we pay back with punishment. Distance, as when we see criminals as monsters - makes the most severe punishments possible.
http://www.dictum.no/Arkiv/intervjunilschristie.html

To show how much of a hippie he is, here's a book about it:
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/limits_to_pain/
In any case: I cannot imagine a position where I should strive for an increase of man-inflicted pain on earth. Nor can I see any good reason to believe that the recent level of pain-infliction is just the right or natural one. And since the matter is important, and I feel compelled to make a choice, I see no other defensible position than to strive for pain-reduction.

One of the rules would then be: If in doubt, do not pain. Another rule would be: Inflict as little pain as possible.

[Bahimiron]

The reason we don't do the stuff you, jpinard, and Jon Danger (am I missing anyone?)

EpicBoy. Though he's just using prison rape as a metaphor for... something?

[Hanzii]

EpicBoy. Though he's just using prison rape as a metaphor for... something?

It's a metaphor for being shanked in the shower...

[Machfive]

Machfive, I'm glad to see your position seems to be more nuanced than what you wrote above, which is what I was responding to. Namely:

Because I consider that ("instantly forfeit any right to exist among us"?) as foolish as all the stupid stuff about how we should let terrible people get raped, how we should line them up so we only have to use one bullet, or how we should let African fire ants eat out their eyeballs. I'm pretty sure all those things have been suggested in these threads.

I agree that my wording was perhaps poor there. I was going a bit over the top with "instantly," and "right to exist" should've been more like "right to exist alongside us." This leads to your following point:

Fortunately, that's not how our country works. Instead, we have something called due process, by which certain rights can be stripped, but within limits.

Which I also agree with. So to clarify for posterity's sake:

I think that once you've passed some sort of threshold of criminality, when a panel of doctors and psychologists can safely proclaim that you are a defective human being with no hope of rehabilitation, when a jury of your peers has found you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and you've used all of your appeals, then you lose the right to exist alongside us in society.


I don't think that being removed from society should be an easy bar to meet, it should only be reserved for this with severely dysfunctional personalities who've committed only the most horrible crimes.

There's always going to be the occasional psychologist who thinks that serial killers, rapists, pedophiles and their ilk are treatable, that with the right combination of drugs and therapy, that you can take away the muderous or brutal impulses that these criminals act on.

The vast majority, however, are realistic enough to acknowledge that these types of criminals are never going to change, and any attempts to "fix" them would be futile at best.

Plus, we should let African fire ants eat out their eyeballs!

-Tom

Tom, you're not going to be happy until we break out the ants, are you? I'm sure Bush could find a use for you until we shut Gitmo down. :)


I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. Are you, machfive? It seems to me on one hand you're saying allowing criminals to intermingle as in our current system results in recidivism and more violent crimes (committed by the "more hardened and dysfuntional" criminals produced in prison). On the other, you're saying only the most depraved and inhuman of prisoners should be kept in solitary with no human contact for the remainder of their lives. So what do we do with all the rapists, killers, robbers, car thieves, drug dealers, etc. who assumedly have not forfeited their rights to exist in our society (by your as yet undefined metric)?

Those are valid questions. In order to answer them, I would have to flesh out some hypothetical systems and go into an absolute assload of detail, and in the end, I'd only have an imaginary answer.

If you'd like elaboration, let me know, I'll take some time to come up with a proper response.

As a given, any scenario I work on is going to assume that the prison population has been reduced by 50% because nonviolent drug offenders would be phased back into society, leaving only three classes of criminals (with possible overlaps, of course) - The violent (murder, assault), the sexual (rape, molestation), and the thieves (robbery, larceny, property crime). Further, it would assume that we've managed to weed out those working in the prison system who are corrupt and even violent or sadistic themselves.

Uhm, there's plenty of research on what solitary confinement over a longer period does to a human. It's not healthy and Amnesty International label it torture - whether the research is clear cut enough to deem it cruel and unusual as defined by you or your superior court is another matter. But you won't find any experts on the matter claiming it's good for the mind or even harmless.

I live in a country with a much more humane prison system (and much lower crime rates) but the police is overusing solitaire confinement and there's been plenty of examples of people who'd have preferred the eyeball eating fire ants.

People like the ones you describe is what the death penalty is for and it's a more humane end than what you're suggesting. I'm personally against the death penalty because I don't trust the courts with that kind of power... but in theory I would be for it for people like that.

I guess the problem here is with the definition of solitary confinement, how it is currently used, versus how it would be in my hypothetical.

Are we talking about prisoners kept in tiny cells, fed their meals through a tiny slot, deprived of sunlight or any way of telling what time it is, for months at a time?

I think that's commonly called "the hole," and it's the way solitary confinement currently works. I agree that it is in fact torture-lite. I'd rather be water-boarded than thrown in the hole.

I'm suggesting normal-sized cells, exposure to daytime cues, daily time outside, essentially, everything a normal prisoner experiences, the only difference being almost entirely detached from society. You could never get zero human contact, there would always be the guards that escort the prisoners outside, the medical personnel to make sure the prisoners are in good health. I imagine there would probably be some form of visitation allowed maybe once or twice a year.

[SlyFrog]

We don't house violent criminals in facilities that cost less because we're not barbaric.

If we were not barbaric, we would not house violent criminals in facilities and dedicate resources to them that cost more than what we dedicate to non-criminals who are living in poverty, etc.

It kind of bugs me that we have homeless people out there, but that we have plenty of prisons feeding people three meals a day.

Yes, the answer may be to step up the resources dedicated to the homeless, but it may also be to reevaluate where we spend our money as a society, and about which parts of society we are more concerned.

And once again, what in the hell is this thread doing in Everything Else, as opposed to P&R?

[Hanzii]

I'm suggesting normal-sized cells, exposure to daytime cues, daily time outside, essentially, everything a normal prisoner experiences, the only difference being almost entirely detached from society. You could never get zero human contact, there would always be the guards that escort the prisoners outside, the medical personnel to make sure the prisoners are in good health. I imagine there would probably be some form of visitation allowed maybe once or twice a year.

We don't have anything like what you call 'the hole' in our prisons. In fact I didn't think you guys had anymore either... but then that prison rape article shocked me as well, even though I knew about the phenomenon.

What you describe above is what Amnesty considers torture if endured in months and what medical professionals agree to as not being healthy on the psyche. Reading on Amnestys site as well as Wikipedia and this article (http://sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/98-09%20FALL/solitary.html)it also appears that your definition is allready in widespread use (for some of the criminals you want to use it on) and in fact what is usually called 'the hole'.

[Athryn]

I'm suggesting normal-sized cells, exposure to daytime cues, daily time outside, essentially, everything a normal prisoner experiences, the only difference being almost entirely detached from society. You could never get zero human contact, there would always be the guards that escort the prisoners outside, the medical personnel to make sure the prisoners are in good health. I imagine there would probably be some form of visitation allowed maybe once or twice a year.

I watched a documentary on "Supermax" prisons, I can't remember what channel (maybe A&E?) which are exactly what you describe here. It drives them crazy.

And by crazy, I mean really fucking crazy. These people end up mutilating themselves and killing themselves. It's really sad and pathetic, and is one of the unwittingly cruelest forms of punishment we have.

[Bill Dungsroman]

I did say it wasn't going to work. I just thought it was a cool idea. I am not really messing his ideas up, they are not exactly verbatim what he talked about, but what I was told was the kant-ian viewpoint in an ethics class. Maybe I was taught the wrong thing.

While I think the Kant-ian viewpoint is an interesting one, I still have trouble getting over my hippy love everyone feelings.

Hahaha, he thought he learned about it in a class, maybe. I think the Supreme Court used that as their precedent for final deliberation on Roe vs. Wade.

[Bahimiron]

Hahaha, he thought he learned about it in a class, maybe. I think the Supreme Court used that as their precedent for final deliberation on Roe vs. Wade.

I think he read about it on Wikipedia but about halfway through he got bored and went to see what was new at PornoTube.com