Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:09:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1189 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I was referring to criminals *in* prison-- if most assert innocence, I doubt • they
> would be willing to work to make reparations.
Me too. They assert innocence in order to try to get out. They would be
willing to work if they were properly incented to. You can shackle people and
have them make gravel, but that's not useful. You can not shackle people and
have them write code.
> I think we agree that criminals should *work* to make reparations. All I'm
> pointing out is that, *in our current system*, criminals just sit around • watching
> cable, eat 4 squares, etc, etc, and I don't consider that as a payment of • their
> debt to society *justice*.
I agree with your description, but not with the fact that that's all you're
saying. You specifically asked for my opinion and now you're saying it doesn't
apply because all you're saying is that you don't like the current system. I
don't get it.
> At least (*in our current system*) if a criminal is
> executed according to law (and he is indeed guilty), justice is done.
Probably three out of four times. Pretty good? No.
> All I am
> saying is that simple incarceration isn't enough, and simple incarceration
> with all of the amenities (our current system) is an affront to my
> sensibilities.
Fine. Mine too. Incarceration where the base is a five by five cell and one
meal of gruel and vitamins each day, with dim light and only educational TV,
but lots of other possibilites that they could "buy" by working hard to be
good, which is what I favor, is not the current system. And that's what I was
talking about when you asked for my opinion.
> > > Simple incarceration is not enough.
> > > *Forcing* them to work to make reparations is the answer, IMO.
> >
> > You only force them when needed. After therapy, they will be reasonable and
> > will seek to remedy their wrong.
>
> Naive.
Me or you? I've read some CJ psychology, and I think you're wrong. We don't
have sufficient technology to psychotherapize everyone who is broken, but we
can do what we can do, and continue research for the rest of them.
> Criminals are lazy, and for the most part, uneducated.
They respond to the same stimulae that we all do.
> They don't care about being rehabilitated. They don't care much about
> anything but themselves at all.
I see. Which ones? What are their names? Why do you think that? You think
that they wouldn't rather be anywhere else, if only they knew how? That's
crap.
> Yeah, and many more have been "rehabilitated" and enter society, only to pick
> up their life of crime where they left off.
Absolutely. That is a HUGE problem. Criminals usually leave prison with more
nefarious skills than when they entered. Bad, bad, bad. Shame on us for
allowing that. If the prisons tried to build better people, that would not be
the case.
> The percentage of crime committed in
> this country by repeat offenders is unbelievably high (although I haven't the
> figure, I believe it is above 80% IIRC. Someone please correct me if I am
> wrong).
I believe that you are within 10%.
> > Many more would if that was what the prison system
> > was striving for.
>
> It is not the function of prison to rehabilitate; but to incarcerate.
Therein lies the paradigmatic flaw in our CJ system. And you (and most people)
buy into this line, which is the cause of the problem. It's a shame.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
