Subject:
|
Re: Handling of Prisoners?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:06:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
919 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I'm not sure I'd give [prisoners] cable OR net access.
>
> I don't support the way prisoners are treated in the US (or for that matter,
> the way prisons are organized and funded)... but don't confuse that with
> support for putting someone to death in order to cut costs of incarceration.
It is demonstrable that the cost of putting a prisoner to death (after
weighing the costs of appeals et al) greatly exceeds the cost of imprisoning
that same prisoner for life; the argument that execution saves money is flawed.
It is, by the way, also demonstrable (I'll have to dig up the statistics
before I quote them) that the rate of recidivism in today's rehabilitating
prison system is not substantially less than in the simple system of
incarceration without rehab one hundred years ago. Cable TV and Net access
notwithstanding, today's system does little to sway criminals (actual
criminals; not pot smokers, for instance) from their behavior.
> One of the scariest things about having TweedleDUMB president (which is
> looking less certain now) is that he doesn't spend much time on reviewing
> clemency.
I wasn't sure which candidate you meant at first, but now I think I've got
it. An additional quirk of the Texas legal system forces the jurors to
choose between life with parole *or* execution; life without parole isn't an
option for them.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
