Crapola, I say.

In another forum recently, I noticed people alluding to prison rape as an acceptable result of being put into prison, and that anyone who commits a crime deserves what they get.

Doesn’t rape fall under the heading of cruel and unusual punishment? Doesn’t permitting rape in prison, make rape a de facto punishment for just about any and every crime. Escaping that punishment is dependent on the given inmate's toughness, and avoiding that punishment frequently turns an otherwise relatively mild-mannered convict into a much more dangerous person. (What makes the whole thing even more absurd is that the inmates most likely to be victimized by rapists are usually the least likely to be "deserving", if we are measuring by the severity or violence of the crime committed by the victim/inmate.)

It seems sick, twisted and simply wrong to take the attitude that anyone who commits a crime deserves to be raped, or that it's acceptable that they be raped.

The founder of Stop Prisoner Rape ( http://www.spr.org/en/about.html) was a perfect example of why tolerating prison rape is barbaric, and his experience seems to undercut any claim we might make to being champions of judicial fairness or human rights. He was arrested for unlawful assembly at a Quaker Pray-In anti-war demonstration, didn't pay the bail out of principal, and ultimately ended up being raped 60 times ( http://www.spr.org/en/doc_01_answerme.html) in a two-day period. I hate to use a “story” instead of a cite, but a high school friend of mine embezzled $16 from his employer when he was 17 years old, and because he was unprotected from rape in the adult prison he was sent to, ended up committing murder.

It's time we stopped bredding criminals in our prisons. It's time we started trying to help the helpable become decent members of society instead of hopeless victims and degenerates that are virtually guaranteed to become even more villainous than before they went in.

Peace.

In no means is it an acceptable punishment for crime. But it is one of the factors you have to consider before committing a crime.
I dont think its right, people that are usually raped are new and scared and cannot defend themselves. But do you have any suggestions on how to prevent something like this from happening? The only way that I can think of, is to lock them up individually and not give them any contact with other inmates. That would take care of gangs, rape, etc...
But is that considered cruel and unusual? :bugeye:

Id like to hear other views or comments. Good subject Goofy.

Groove on

Perhaps there should be different kind of prisons. To prevent the so called light criminals from behaviour like rape from the real criminals who act like they are in command in prison and rape every newbie on the block.

Being in an anti-war demonstration is hardly a crime to me, then again, I guess you're talking U$ here, so nothing new under the sun. Jees, isn't it about time the U$ does something about the behaviour of 'their' criminals?

Rape is never an option. It's the most cruel 'thing' you can do to another human being who cannot defend him/herself in any way. And absolutely no help from the prison guards. They are afraid of the prisoners in most of the cases and stay out of it. Too afraid to get harmed theirselves.

Oh I quit with it again, it just makes me feel more sick about the system in the U$...

Indeed, a sticky situation. On one hand, it needs to be punished. On the other hand, the people who commit these rapes are likely to be the people in prison for life, or people for which a bit more prison time is relatively meaningless, and I hardly doubt that this is a problem particular to the US prison system.

I think that Banshee is probably onto something. In addition to maximum and minimum security prisons, perhaps we should build a group of "medium security" prisons, for people who have been found guilty of non-violent crimes. The problem is that anyone moved out of a maximum security prison into a medium security prison is going to have the prison culture impressed onto them pretty completely, and with the new inmates coming in, I would think that the cycle would restart again.

But that doesn't really solve the fundamental problem, does it? In *any* system there's going to be one person who will enforce physical power over others, especially in a system where people are added because of their propensity to do just that sort of thing. So, do we need to "indoctrinate" prisoners of a maximum security prison with enough violence by the guards so that they know who really is on top? That sounds at least unusual, and rather cruel to me, and may use negative reinforcement to encourage the same brutality through the ranks.

What about smaller prisons? If there is one 20,000 person structure, wouldn't it be easier to have 20 1000 person structures? Or even 200 100-person structures in the same complex? Hell, that would even probably make things more fair for the guards, because the inter-complex communication would be much smaller. Unfortunately, there is a *large* capital investment that would necessarily be required if we chose this solution, and no one wants to spend alot of extra money on prisoners.

There could also be some sort of other punative system in place, raping a fellow inmate (something that's likely to be provable) could be grounds for harsher punishment. I think that the consequences would *have* to be corporeal or capital, because there are only so many ways of getting through to animals-and let's face it, that's what many of these people are.

Rapists should be killed. One of the few things I don't tolerate at all, ever, in any situation. They are sub-human scum who pollute the Earth by existing.

With present technology it should be economically feasible to keep every place in a prison under automatic surveillance. AI systems could monitor for certain activities. (Such as an inmate screaming for help.) As well as alerting guards, the system could record the event for later evaluation and prosecution. There should be some means of remotely stopping a crime inside a prison.

It might be hard to keep such a system from being compromised or subverted. Might require periodic testing and monitoring by an outside agency. Could violate a prisoner’s civil rights. (Such as the “right” to molest.)

Radio “imprisonment” could also be used for non-violent, low risk criminals. Tamper-proof radio transmitters could monitor and enforce movement restrictions. The degree of restriction could be tailored to the crime. The technology exists and should be economical.

They are afraid of the prisoners in most of the cases and stay out of it


Would you risk your life for the amount of money an office worker makes? Banshee, did you know that guards do not carry weapons? I think some harsher prisons are starting to get their guards plastic shields, but thats about it. Why dont we start paying the guards descent money and training them properly? Why are we sooo concerned about trying to help out prisoners who commit crimes? Yes, maybe we should have maximum/minimum security prisons it might help a little, but I doubt it.
And I agree, I dont think rape in prisons is only a US problem.

Imahamster

Thats a great idea - now whos going to pay for it all:D

A couple things to add.

1 We already have minimum security prisons, and I am under the impression that rape is not a problem in them.

2 I am under the impression that it is law that prisoners can have no expectation of privacy, which allows cells to be searched and meetings to be taped.

3 I am fully in support of keeping a well stocked armoury with appropriate safety features in prisons, to discourage any sort of rioting and whatever else might be necessary.

4 A video surveillance system should be installed, monitored by guards.

Maybe have different classes of prisons based on the type of crime, but have those classes also determine the amount of money spent on those imprisoned.

1) Non-violent offenders. White collar crims. Surveillance, reasonable food and lodgings, maybe some efforts at rehabilitation and education.

2) Violent offenders who caused no permanent loss, no permanent physical or emotional injury. Spend a middling amount of money and effort on them.

3) Murderers, rapists, and those who have caused any other form of permanent emotional or physical injury. Put them in little concrete boxes and forget about the bastards.

Digital cameras and microphones have dropped greatly in price. A computer front end to process the image and sound to detect dangerous situations should be relatively cheap. This is similar to systems being marketed for home security today. A prison-wide wireless intranet would allow the surveillance devices to notify guards, record a disturbance, and notify an outside monitoring agency. The outside agency should keep the guards from abusing the surveillance system and doctoring evidence.

The system should only be implemented if it reduces the cost per prisoner of incarceration. As the present prison cost is over twenty thousand a year per prisoner (based upon hamster recollection), such a system should be able to save money. (Might be funded out of educational funds for retraining, as the network could be dual function.)

In Australia, prisoners cost us around $55,000 each per year. That's more than my father ever made in a year. They get TV, internet, sports, free medical care, free food, arts and crafts classes, "rehabilitation", and more. I'm so damn happy these murderers and rapists are so well looked after...

Banshee
" And absolutely no help from the prison guards. They are afraid of
the prisoners in most of the cases and stay out of it. Too afraid to get
harmed theirselves."

And what prison movies have you been watching lately, my dear?

ImaHamster2
"The outside agency should keep the guards from abusing the surveillance
system and doctoring evidence."

Gee. Considering that most, if not all, 'guards' are ignorant, uneducated
Neanderthals ... Who would 'abuse' or 'doctor' sophisticated electronic
systems for them?

The two of you: Get real :rolleyes:

"It's time we stopped bredding criminals in our prisons. It's time we started
trying to help the helpable become decent members of society instead of
hopeless victims and degenerates that are virtually guaranteed to become
even more villainous than before they went in."

Damn, I didn't know we were 'bredding' criminals in prison.

I was under the foolish impression that society breeds the criminals who
are then incarcerated to 'protect society' ... The society that bred them.

That is except for the no-good son-of-a-b*****s who acomplished it all
on their own.

Take care :rolleyes:

Chagur, this hamster does not assume that the motive or talent to abuse a system comes from “ignorant, uneducated Neanderthals”. Nor does this hamster assume that low paid employees don’t have such technical skill. This hamster believes that some prisoners have the means to bribe guards and access technology. This hamster also believes that prison officials with the capability to tamper with the system might be tempted to do so.

As a general principle this hamster does not believe in extending police power without an independent oversight agency to protect against misuse. The outside monitoring agency also serves to protect the prison officials in the event of disputed evidence.

As this is a hypothetical system this is as “real” as this hamster chooses to get.

Gee. Considering that most, if not all, 'guards' are ignorant, uneducated... Who would 'abuse' or 'doctor' sophisticated electronic systems for them?

The two of you: Get real

Somebody tinkle in your Wheaties this morning, Chagur?

I believe I've read where you've had experience with both law enforcement and the prison system.

Options:

Tear down other's ideas...

Offer some "real" insight of your own...

Or, be a well-mannered dragon and let the folks sort through it unscorched...

Take care... :cool:

CB

Nathaniel Hawthorne, in the American classic novel, The Scarlet Letter, makes the point early on that two permanent institutions of human society are jails and graveyards. That is, there will always be criminals, and people will always die.

Bearing that in mind, what are prisons for?

• Are prisons houses of rehabilitation?
• Are prisons houses of punishment?
• Are prisons mere relief for our consciences?

We have in the United States the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which reads,Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.The Eighth Amendment is in place to prevent such things as public whippings (a Puritan tradition), sexual molestations (a Puritan tradition) and also the atrocities of debtors' prisons (regarded as an English monstrosity in the day), and so forth. Take our "three strikes" laws, in which your third felony results in some ridiculous punishment, such as life in prison. Sounds good, eh? So you were convicted of date rape in high school. Whoops. Okay, we understand that these mistakes happen, so after a certain time we will let you back out. Did you hurt someone defending yourself in a fight? (I do know a guy who went to prison at 17 for just that; of course, he didn't just defend himself, he proceeded to freak out and beat the guy within an inch of his life.) Now ... did you steal a slice of pizza? This link (http://www.facts1.com/general/news.htm) should lead you to a website documenting some of the problems of that three-strikes law.

There are a number of confusing aspects about criminal law in the United States. For instance, in the case of the slice of pizza, a petty theft was automatically escalated to a felony--thus allowing the 25-to-life sentence--based on a piece of legalistic pucky.

Or carrier-weight laws in the drug war. The law as applied to the drug war reflects no other portion of American justice. Ever hear of Tylox? It's a painkiller with 350 mg acetamenophin (Tylenol) and between 5 and 50 mg coedine. I'm currently searching Families Against Mandatory Minimums (http://www.famm.org) for the story, but as I recall, a hippie leaving a Dead concert was sentenced to 25 years in prison for possession of a roach and a Tylox. How did they reach this conclusion? Well, the total weight of the pill at >400 mg plus the weight of the plastic bottle equaled a gram of coedine, classified as street heroin for sentencing purposes, and then applied to the marijuana roach to tack an automatic distribution escalation (this process is under fire per Apprendi v. New Jersey, a firearms case), and the unsealing of a juvenile Minor in Possession of a Controlled Substance charge, which helped classify him as recidivist. In fact, the FAMM site is great testament against the state of prisons today, as we must bear in mind the nature of the drug war.

What effect do prisons have in society? In the US, we have long held racial tensions regarding the crime rate among black Americans. Consider the Department of Justice's own statistics on the Crack Standard. First of all, crack cocaine is no different from powdered cocaine when you get to the molecular level. That is, I can crush a crack rock and snort it. Yet 5 grams of crack earns you five years in prison under the federal standard, while the minimum at the time of its induction for powdered cocaine was 500 grams equals five years. 1995 statistics showed 2,400 or so prosecutions under the crack standard, of which eleven were not black and three were white. However, other federal numbers showed that 65% of crack users documented in 1995 were white. If we travel back to the late 1980s and early 90s, statistics reflected two grim possibilities for black males: prison or death. 1 in 3 would not see their 18th birthday at all, and 1 in 3 would serve prison time (invoking the old difference 'twixt jail and prison) before their 30th birthday. When we put the two facts side by side, and consider the nature of prisons, we come back to the essence of the questions above: What is the purpose of prisons?

Now, take the stigma of having served prison time and try to get a job ... it's getting a little better these days, since the impact of the drug war is so mighty. Serving a drug conviction isn't nearly as damaging if you're white as a harder felony. But the simple fact is that unless we wish to throw everybody in prison for life for petty infractions of the law (speeding, stealing a slice of pizza, &c.) and spend that $55,000 per annum on their incarceration (I'm too lazy to look up the American number right now) prisons must necessarily provide rehabilitation, education, and a number of other things that hardliners in this country would refuse prisons. At present, prisons are breeding grounds for violent criminals. I suppose, of course, we could put you to death for hitting your wife, but what would the impact of that be after a certain time when that many people are removed from society? Such sentencing, of course, violates the Eighth Amendment, and I highly doubt that the American hardliners can muster enough support to revoke that Amendment (2/3 of Congress to pass and 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify).

In the end it's a simple question of what prisons are intended to do. Generally speaking, we must at some point reintroduce the convict to society. What kind of person do we wish to reintroduce to public life?

I would venture a guess that, in the United States, at least, the reason people look so hard upon the "luxuries" of prisons is that in order to recondition prisoners, we must guarantee certain human rights that people just don't seem to want to give each other in the law-abiding community.

Prisons are a reflection of society.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa

Bearing that in mind, what are prisons for?

• Are prisons houses of rehabilitation?
• Are prisons houses of punishment?
• Are prisons mere relief for our consciences?


You missed one: To protect the rest of us from murdering, raping scum.

Society functions by people living by certain ways, ways that let as function as a society. Some people refuse to do so, just take whatever they want, hurt people. I see no reason why society should extend protection to those who would not do so for their society. Prison is not about doing good for the people who try to screw a society over. They are about protecting the rest of us from this vicious, lying, thieving scum.

•*http://www.famm.org
• http://www.november.org

Yep, murdering, raping scum.

In the United States, we're building prisons faster than schools, and for years the trend has shown a reduction of bedspace for violent criminals (e.g. murdering, raping scum) while we devote more and more bedspace to nonviolent criminals.

It's nice to say that prisons are there to protect us from murdering, raping scum, but that's hardly an answer to what prisons are for. In general, prisons fail to protect us from murdering, raping scum because prisons manufacture murdering, raping scum.

Consider Joe, your a run-of-the-mill petty crook. Send him to maximum-security prison for possession of cocaine. Great. You've got a guy put away for five years in which you won't have to worry about him grabbing your purse or, worse yet, getting high and hanging out with his friends. In prison, what happens?

•*Job skills, education, and rehabilitation, or ...
•*Getting raped, lifting weights, and learning to be a mortal force.

Once Joe gets back out on the street after his five-year minimum plus a little time for the misbehavior of hurting someone while trying to avoid being raped, and of course a little more for trying to avoid being beaten by the guards, and he comes out a lean, taut crime machine with an attitude problem. You can always send him back to prison, but now someone's dead because he couldn't get a legitimate job, and ended up killing someone in a crappy drug deal.

On the other hand, womens' prisons are a nightmare. Women are routinely groped, raped, and otherwise violated by guards. Whenever the news wants a sob story on prisons, a womens' prison is the place to look. Of course, if we all had George W Bush for governor, we could put those women to death. After all, killing your husband in an act of defense is punishable by death in Texas. Betty Lou Beets (http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/02/24/beets.execution.01/) had a troubled history, and had been arrested on prior occasions for domestic violence, but while George W Bush was pronouncing himself tough on crime, he was also excusing himself from her execution by saying it was out of his hands. Nonetheless,Beets' legal team and a coalition of supporters including domestic-violence awareness groups and Amnesty International USA wanted her death sentence commuted to life in prison.

They said Beets, who has been in jail since 1985, was damaged both physically and psychologically and that she had poor legal counsel because the jury that sentenced her to die was not told about the abuse.

"Betty's daughters went to (a previous defense attorney) ... and gave him pictures of Betty taken after she had been beaten up, horribly battered," Margulies said. "Had he looked, he could have amassed the information that we eventually got ... and asked the (parole) board to review, but they declined. There is, in fact, a Betty Lou Beets homepage (http://ccadp.org/bettiebeets.htm) that points out, in Betty's own words, At age five years old is the first I recall of rape, yet I didn't know what rape was for many years to come.

I am 62 now. At age five you didn't hear those kinds of words and I couldn't hear anything then. I remember the pain and fear as I was hurting and my mother and aunt tried to help me. I remember them trying to put something back into me as if my insides were falling out. I still don't recall who did it. I think back at times to try, but I can't. Nobody protected her from the raping scum.

It's a clean, simple answer that prisons exist to protect us from the murdering, raping scum, but the truth of the matter is that they don't.

I take it, then, Adam, that once one is in prison, regardless of why, they should never be let out? The reason I conclude that from your post is that, at present, as I have noted, prisons are breeding grounds for violent criminals. We have at least two options to address this:

•*Try to rehabilitate prisoners to function in society.
•*Never release anyone from prison for any reason.

Given the number of people we throw in prison, and the reasons we do so, the second option is not viable, at least in the United States.Some people refuse to do so, just take whatever they want, hurt people. I see no reason why society should extend protection to those who would not do so for their society. Prison is not about doing good for the people who try to screw a society over.Yep. All people convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison are the same, aren't they?

I got a call from a friend of mine. She had to go downtown to get a friend out of jail today. I still don't know how she did it, but she got the charges dropped before arraignment by explaining the ridiculously high probability that the woman accusing him of beating her was lying through her teeth. Another friend of mine was inches from prison when his wife finally relented and confessed to the court that she made up the charges of domestic abuse.

Quite frankly, she realized that she would have to get a job. That's the only reason she dropped the charges; well, except for the fact that they were false.

What is the difference between what could have been and what is? Well, let's get one thing straight about American law. Two weeks ago, my partner of six years escalated our relationship by introducing physical violence. In front of people on the street, in front of the police, in front of God if you will, she threw a punch. A drunk woman striking a man is apparently not a crime; I knew damn well better than to hit her as hard as she needed to be hit. Why? Because I know that you literally have to let a woman kill you if you wish to escape the wrath of the law.

But once they're in prison, they're all the same, eh? Just scum.

Well? Once you're in, should you ever be let out? And no, by your generalization, it does not matter why they're in prison.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Adam
Maybe have different classes of prisons based on the type of crime, but have those classes also determine the amount of money spent on those imprisoned.

1) Non-violent offenders. White collar crims. Surveillance, reasonable food and lodgings, maybe some efforts at rehabilitation and education.

2) Violent offenders who caused no permanent loss, no permanent physical or emotional injury. Spend a middling amount of money and effort on them.

3) Murderers, rapists, and those who have caused any other form of permanent emotional or physical injury. Put them in little concrete boxes and forget about the bastards.

That's a far cry from your generalization.

In this country we have what are colloquially referred to as "resort prisons". These are federal prisons reserved for nonviolent, white-collar criminals. Ask any of the over 100 Reagan-administration staffers who would eventually serve time there. Some of them even have tennis courts and swimming pools.

Furthermore, I remind you that in this country, bedspace for violent criminals is being reduced for drug-possession convicts. I know a guy who was convicted once of possessing methamphetamine. He served worse time than he did on his second felony conviction, when he was busted running guns.

After all, if we threw all the rapists in prison and forgot about them, life would be great. The male-female ratio would shift to about 1:100. Eighty per cent of my male classmates from high school would be in little concrete boxes.

And, I do think it less-than-dignified to respond to the idea of what to do with people when they get out of prison by providing a generalization such as your murdering, raping scum example and then retreating to prison classifications.

The ones that are never getting out of prison anyway aren't of that much concern. After all, they're never getting out of prison.

But what of the rest of them? Therein lies the essential question that has yet to be answered.

--Tiassa :cool:

That's a far cry from your generalization.

I made no generalisation. I said murderers and rapists should be locked up for ever.


After all, if we threw all the rapists in prison and forgot about them, life would be great. The male-female ratio would shift to about 1:100. Eighty per cent of my male classmates from high school would be in little concrete boxes.

That's disgusting. 80% were rapists you think? They should be hanged.


And, I do think it less-than-dignified to respond to the idea of what to do with people when they get out of prison by providing a generalization such as your murdering, raping scum example and then retreating to prison classifications.

Fine, let me add something to those three classifications (although I'm sure you actually realised this anyway).
1 & 2) Time served based on damage done.
3) Lock them up for ever.
There, nice and separate now. :)

I'm all for helping out the non-violent offenders, provided they show some measure of desire to live afterward without committing more crimes. I believe I made that clear in the post I quoted above.

Jerry Dewayne Williams
3rd Strike Theft of a slice of pizza
Sentence: 25 years to life, reduced to 6
On a warm evening in July 1994 Jerry Williams was having a few drinks and relaxing on the Redondo Beach pier. After he and a friend had bought some slices of pizza, they noticed a group of kids dining on an extra-large pepperoni pie and demanded some of theirs. The oldest child refused, but Williams and his friend each took a piece anyway. The friend got away, but Williams was arrested in a nearby arcade after the pizza shop owner called the police. The Los Angeles District Attorney charged Williams with robbery, saying he used intimidation to scare the kids. In the end, the jury hung on the robbery charge but convicted Williams of petty theft with priors, netting him a 25 years to life sentence. Deputy Public Defender Arnold T. Lester filed a defense motion that argued the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Superior Court Judge Donald F. Pitts denied the motion but later, after Romero, reduced the sentence to six years. People v Williams, Cr No.YA 020612-01.
The Prosecution: "I didn't think the judge would do it," says prosecutor Bill Gravlin, referring to the sentence reduction. "Three strikes," he says, "is supposed to deal with recidivist criminals." And Williams had earlier charges for robbery, attempted robbery, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and possession of a controlled substance. "[Williams] ripped off four defenseless little kids," adds Gravlin. "The youngest was only seven." During the trial Gravlin asked the seven-year-old to stand next to the six-foot five-inch Williams to try to prove the robbery charge that didn't stick. "This was his fifth adult conviction and the second time he'd gotten caught using the threat of force," says Gravlin. But even though the pizza thievery was bad enough, Gravlin says, "It's wrong to focus just on the last offense. [Williams] was only 27 and had 14 years of criminal history. He is a habitual criminal. Some young people make mistakes and get better," adds Gravlin. "He just got worse."


If he was so concerned about going to jail, why did he commit such a stupid crime? He was a bully, a crackhead, a theif - and those are just the things he got caught for - and you guys are whining becuase he is spending 6 years in prison?
There are people that dont deserve to be in prison, but the majority of people in prison - deserve to be there. The three strikes law - alot of the people had horrible records and then they went and did something so stupid and got in trouble for - now everyone is yelling - "Cruel and unusual punishment!" I just dont get it. We shouldnt put inmates together based on the time they received for sentencing. We should put them together based on the crimes they committed. Murders get to bunk with murders, rapists with rapists, petty theifs with petty theifs, etc. Like I said before - if you dont want to go to prison - dont commit the crime. (with the exception of the "few" who are innocent)


Groove on

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
He was a bully, a crackhead, a theif...Just a little editorializing there, with the "crackhead" comment? There is no mention of that in your quote. :bugeye:

And I'm not sure anyone is whining about his incarceration. This thread has somewhat devolved from the intent of the OP, which is not surprising or a problem, but all of these threads that address a specific issue seem to slide into this type of argument.

Peace.

possession of a controlled substance.

I was assuming it was crack. Sorry. I use that term alot, since I live around tons of em. But people in here are arguing points about 3 strike law and such. I was just defending it.

I promise not to get off of the subject again:D


Groove on

After all, if we threw all the rapists in prison and forgot about them, life would be great. The male- female ratio would shift to about 1:100. Eighty per cent of my male classmates from high school would be in little concrete boxes.

80% of your classmates from high school were rapists, Tiassa? Where on god's green earth did you attend?

I find it hard to believe that most men are rapists or would be. The national average, in the US, is 32 incidences of violent rape per 100,000 inhabitants. Now of course, this is reported, so it may be a bit higher, but seeing as the number of reported rapes has risen steadily (presumably due to better reporting, less stigma attatched to the victim, yadda yadda), I think this is a fair number to work with. source (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)

My state, Michigan, has a slightly higher number of 50.6 per 100,000.

So, I don't think we would have anything like a 1:100 male/female ratio.

*Adopts 'Dr.Strangelove' voice*

I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, they will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature....

Right, I'll stop.

There's a reason I'm not worried about the priests. I went to a Catholic school, where obsession with sexual purity had a ridiculous impact.

Friday morning, kneel for absolution. Friday night, kneel for ...?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Aaaaah. That explains a bit.

I made no generalisation. I said murderers and rapists should be locked up for ever.Well, let's see ... you were addressing the question of what prisons are for, and gave a generalized answer that seems to indicate that protecting ourselves from rapists and murderers is their sole point. Presently, those classifications of prisoners constitute a minority of the American prison population, at least.

Thus, it's an easy answer, a general and political slogan. It really doesn't have much bearing on the issue.

And of those rapists ... I do know a guy who did time for rape. He met a woman in a tavern, bought her a few drinks, took her back to his place where they engaged in consensual intercourse. Shortly thereafter, her father prosecuted the guy. Turns out she was sixteen and drinking on a fake ID. Of course, it's only coincidental that neither the tavern nor the bartender weren't prosecuted for aiding the delinquency of a minor. After all, she had ID--how were they supposed to know?

The problem with generalizations, Adam, is that they are generalizations. Not every crime is the same, and so long as we continue to treat crime in such a general manner and with such righteous tones, the problems will only get worse.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

"Somebody tinkle in your Wheaties this morning, Chagur?"

Hell yes! The initiator of this thread who also started the thread in which
the 'crapola' referred to, "I know some homophobes for who I think it
would be 'educational' :) to be sent to prison. hehehehe", was posted and
didn't think it warranted comment at the time.

"Or, be a well-mannered dragon and let the folks sort through it unscorched... "

Why oh why do you wish to deny me one of the few pleasures left to me
in life? Do you have a thing against senior citizens who still dream of
being a fire belching dragon at times? :D

Take care ;)

Given that we've clashed before on subjects like drugs & justice, I'm curious about your opinion:I was under the foolish impression that society breeds the criminals who are then incarcerated to 'protect society' ... The society that bred them.You and I both know that some people ... you just can't change the evil they will commit. Among these are often murderers and rapists, but also the white-collar criminals who steal people's life savings and so forth through embezzlement, fraud, and other means. Of course, these white-collar criminals often learned that their actions are right because of social demands. When the profiteers of the 1980s started dropping like flies for their crimes (I reiterate that, in the end, over 100 of Reagan's people served prison time for their actions), Trudeau noted in Doonesbury, through the voice of the senior Slackmeyer, "Hell, most of the time we didn't know we were breaking the law." What, I wonder, are we teaching people in business school? When I was at the University of Oregon, it was Sun-Tzu. Of course, this brand of criminal gets the tennis court and the spa in prison, and such factors are used to decry the luxury of other prisons.

But then I stop to consider a young boy (kindergarten or first grade) in the northwest who brought a gun to school and killed a little girl. The investigation of how it happened turned stomachs. He lived in a crack-house, surrounded by crackheads and guns, and one need not even be inundated with a certain archetype in order to accept its propriety. Thus, whatever the dispute was between the boy and his classmate, his only known solution was to take one of the many guns around the house to school and shoot her dead. It is a little extreme of an example, but bear with me, I beg you.

What is a young boy living in relative poverty supposed to think? When I was in high school a local druglord/pimp/gun-runner died in a shooting at a Nendel's Inn motel. It was apparently a drug-related accidental suicide, though the ballistics were sketchy toward that end. Nonetheless, this known druglord, pimp, and gun-runner packed a church with thousands, packed the streets with thousands, and had thousands outside the cemetery as he was laid to rest. That is, despite the fact that he was a scumlord, he was looked up to by a good portion of the community because he had found a way to material success.

Sounds twisted, eh? But it is true. I've even seen the attitude on HBO in the last couple of years; a number of interviews with pimps and the young men in their community pretty much demonstrated that, with nobody else to look up to in the neighborhood, pimps, drug dealers, and gun-runners can become role models.

Quite sick, I agree. But enter Midnight Basketball. As silly as it sounds, making basketball courts available to youths in gang-risk zones in the middle of the night had the effect of reducing gang-related crime by 1/3. Now, I'm not going to engage the argument of whether the federal government should be paying for it, but since I agree with paying for performance art ... well ... but yeah, I do understand Newt's point on that one.

So away went the late-night basketball games and up went the gang-related crime numbers.

What we're looking at, then, are rising generation in poverty, with no clear role models, moving toward the money and the glamour in that all-American way, with nothing else to do with their lives. I am curious about the fact that people would rather spend their tax money locking up criminals instead of figuring out how to reduce the number of criminals operating in society.

And to make a point about the drug war itself: here is where prisons breed criminals. With the rate of possession-related incarcerations skyrocketing, and many of these nonviolent criminals being housed among violent criminals, the prisons do breed new criminals. So Johnny gets busted with a rock of crack and gets five years. At this point, his only known crime is possessing cocaine. After his hard-time five years, Johnny emerges a lean, mean crime machine, having done nothing but lift weights, seethe with anger, and fight off every threat that comes his way. With a crack conviction, no education, no rehabilitation, and a serious, serious attitude problem, this druggie who might have been diverted to more useful endeavors is now holding up convenience stores, beating women in order to get laid, and very possibly landing a stolen Cadillac in your front yard as he runs away from the police.

With nothing else to learn in prison, then, this possession convict learns the way of the hardened criminal, and emerges with skills related to such endeavors.

In many cases, the no-good-sons-of-bitches had much help and encouragement toward making their poor decisions. In some cases, they never understood they had a choice. And this is not just stupidity on their parts, but a lack of any apparent alternatives.

I mean, really ... take a guy and throw him in prison for possessing dope and a single Tylox; lock him away for a decade if you want, twenty-five years as some sentencing structures have it. Are we gambling that he will die in prison? Or, if he survives long enough to be released into society, what kind of person are we releasing?

But, you know, we can always throw them back in prison, or gun them down on the streets. After the Dorismond shooting in New York (a black man, 26, killed by police for not having any drugs on him), Hizzoner Rudy Giuliani went before the press to defend the NYPD as having dealt with a career criminal. In order to establish that, though, Giuliani opened and released (illegally) juvenile court records showing Dorsimond's crime career: a single petty shoplifting charge at age 13, never prosecuted.

It sounds nice to condemn criminals with a broad stroke, but reality doesn't reflect that portrait.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

This time we're not going to clash even though I, at times, feel you go
out of you way to 'create' a poor, poor victim.

My quoted comment was a feeble attempt at irony, an irony that made
it somewhat difficult for me to do my job 'by the book' at times.

The system is unfair, corrupt in many ways, and a waste of enormous
amounts of money.

I guess my rude awakening came a couple of years after I became a
'Keeper' ... The old title for a 'Prison' guard ... and I had the first hand
experience seeing how society handles its 'problems'.

Western NY is not known for its mild Winters and among the 'street
people' of the time, mostly alcoholics since the mentally ill still were
'treated' in psychiatric hospitals, it was an established routine for them
to spend four months of a six month sentence for 'Public Intoxication'
at the Penitentiary. In in the Fall; out in the Spring ... usually in far better
shape than we received them.

And then the 'good, caring people' decided that 'public intoxication' only
warranted a 15 day sentence, out in ten days, since it really wasn't a
'crime'. Within a couple of years appoximately two thirds of the older
alcoholics were dead thanks to the 'good, kind, caring people' who didn't
carry through with setting up adequate shelters for the poor bastards.

Forty years later I can still remember 'Panama', Martin Alger, a guy who
normally was a problem free and trust worthy inmate who I liked as a
person (after he had 'dried out') coming in with an 'attitude'. It took about
a week and a half for him to 'open up' and tell me what was bothering
him. Seems "They made a criminal out of me, kid. The only way I could get
six months was to throw a brick through a store window. So I did. Damned
if I was going to die in some hallway like those other dumb bastards."

The Correctional System's problems are, for the most part, in my opinion,
problems society creates. And not that much different from the problems
society creates that require incarceration.

Enough of my running off at the mouth.

Take care :(

With nothing else to learn in prison, then, this possession convict learns the way of the hardened criminal,

You know, I agree with alot of what you said but the above statement. My dad used to manufacture drugs, he got 4 years. He did time, got out, was at the wrong place at the wrong time, did 4 more years. He received an education in prison and got out to start a family and own his own business. You DONT have to come out with an attitude problem. If a person with no previous known record gets caught with 1 rock and no other circumstances - he is not going to get 5 years. He would most likely receive a diversion. If "Johnny" or whoever had a previous record and other circumstances involved - then yes he would might get 5 years. Okay, Im getting off point again.

Look, I grew up in the straight ghetto, have witnessed murders and watched my mom throw her life away to drugs - and almost watched my dad. Ive been sexually, mentally and physically abused up until I was old enough to leave home. Ive pretty much seen it all. Im not a druggie (except for bud), Im not a criminal either, and anyone who uses the excuse of having a hard life for committing crimes - is feeling sorry for themselves - plain and simple. A person chooses the actions they make for themselves. True, the way you grow up affects your decision making - to an extent - but you know right from wrong - and there aint no excuses for that.


Groove on

Chagur

Interesting, and I thank you. It wasn't my intention to clash, but I was aware that this has been a very touchy area 'twixt us before.

stRgrlHe received an education in prisonIt is worth noting that people complain about the idea of educating convicts these days. At least they did in Oregon to the point of it being part of a prisons vote in '95 as I recall, though I think it was a mandatory minimum/prison construction measure that was the actual issue. In Washington, such complaints made the news as late as last year. It's apparently now undermining the economy to train convicts with job skills--I never really understood what people were talking about on that one; well, I did, but I was too busy gloating about the fact that Emma Goldman was right. The stupidity of the complaining business owners is what didn't quite make sense.If a person with no previous known record gets caught with 1 rock and no other circumstances - he is not going to get 5 years. By which statute? I'm referring to a federal statute that was enforced 2,400 times in 1995, and has been around since the late 1980s. It's a mandatory minimum, and judges have often apologized to their defendants, claiming that their hands were tied.

Of your testament, I shan't argue with you. For you are correct. The only issue I would wonder about is what resources you were able to employ on your behalf that may not be there uniformly? That, however, is merely academic.

I thank you deeply for your testament, however. It is valuable perspective, not only in this issue, but in broader concepts of life.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

How long will this link (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Health/Alcohol_and_Alcoholism) last? At any rate, it's a Reuters' story which well pertains to the idea of murderers and rapists and concrete boxes. So, just for the heck of it, the Yahoo! capsule:(Reuters) - Drinking kills 1,400 college students every year and plays a role in 70,000 cases of sexual assault and date rape on campus, a study released on Tuesday found. A quarter of all U.S. college students have driven under the influence of alcohol, and 500,000 have been injured because of booze, concluded the survey, which was published by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.Let's see ... 70,000 at $55,000 a year, by however long? That works out to $3,850,000,000 a year on keeping the rapists in concrete boxes? And that's just the college students? (Yes, I'm still too lazy to look up the American number. But if you feel like getting it, 70,000 is the number by whatever term you think is appropriate.)

Just a happy note on concrete boxes.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Let's see ... 70,000 at $55,000 a year, by however long? That works out to $3,850,000,000 a year on keeping the rapists in concrete boxes? And that's just the college students? (Yes, I'm still too lazy to look up the American number. But if you feel like getting it, 70,000 is the number by whatever term you think is appropriate.)

So shoot the little cretins! I'll help, sheesh, I'll even pay for bullets.

*Shrugs*

Finals week. I'm in a testy mood. I am in my happy place, I am in my happy place, okay! Rational contribution!

The problem with shooting them proves to be that Xev's hands would become sore rape is hard to prove conclusivly.

Well, let's see ... you were addressing the question of what prisons are for, and gave a generalized answer that seems to indicate that protecting ourselves from rapists and murderers is their sole point. Presently, those classifications of prisoners constitute a minority of the American prison population, at least.

I doubt very much that prisons were invented to hold people who stole slices of bread. I think I explained quite clearly in previous posts how I think prisons should work, and why, including reasons concerning different types of criminals.


Thus, it's an easy answer, a general and political slogan. It really doesn't have much bearing on the issue.

Covered, pointless.


And of those rapists ... I do know a guy who did time for rape. He met a woman in a tavern, bought her a few drinks, took her back to his place where they engaged in consensual intercourse. Shortly thereafter, her father prosecuted the guy. Turns out she was sixteen and drinking on a fake ID. Of course, it's only coincidental that neither the tavern nor the bartender weren't prosecuted for aiding the delinquency of a minor. After all, she had ID--how were they supposed to know?

I believe this was also covered. That would be in the first or second class of prison. Such laws (statutory rape laws) are there for a reason, to protect easily influenced young people. This guy you know has as his excuse before the judge "Sorry, I was horny. I didn't really want to think about age, propriety, diseases, whether it was even vaguely a good diea or not. I forgot all ethics and such, because I was horny. Can I go now?"

Sixteen is of age in most states of the US. I think we go as low as fourteen in some of the soulthern states....

I believe it is fifteen in Michigan.

I doubt very much that prisons were invented to hold people who stole slices of bread. I think I explained quite clearly in previous posts how I think prisons should work, and why, including reasons concerning different types of criminalsWhatever. In addition to what you think being quite irrelevant to the reality of the situation, you have yet to address what to do about the fact that we are, indeed, breeding criminals with prisons. The cruelty of your proposed solution means we ought to just expand the application of capital punishment. Of course, you're quite flippant (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=96776#post96776) toward that, as well, so ....

Whatever.

What do you recommend we do, then, about the criminals we have to let out? Just ... uh ... hang them (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=96862#post96862) instead of letting them out?

So here's a great question for you, What do you do with the ones you let out of prison?

And while you're at it, would you like to hang the people with a human conscience, as well?Covered, pointless. That's not an answer but an admission that you have none. You demonstrate your failure to grasp the situation:I believe this was also covered. That would be in the first or second class of prison. Such laws (statutory rape laws) are there for a reason, to protect easily influenced young people. This guy you know has as his excuse before the judge "Sorry, I was horny. I didn't really want to think about age, propriety, diseases, whether it was even vaguely a good diea or not. I forgot all ethics and such, because I was horny. Can I go now?"What, pray tell, does this have to do with anything?

What is it? Are you afraid to actually address the example you cited?

Nice show, Adam. You absolutely, positively whiffed on that one. Perhaps an explanation about taverns in the US: the bartender served her. The waitress served her. She got through the door at all and this isn't supposed to happen. You have to be 21 to enter the establishment in many states, and you cannot buy alcohol at all if you're not 21. So, uh ... what, would you like every guy to have their laptop networked with the department of licensing to validate the ID of every woman they come across before sleeping with her? Excuse me, but would you submit a blood sample so I can get a genetic test to determine that you are the person your ID says you are so that I can't be prosecuted for believing that you are, in fact, of age, since everyone under the sun seems to think you're 22?

Would you like another swing at it?

And, yes, you can go now.

Whiffffff ....

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

There actually exists an old question between my first lover and I whether or not I have committed the crime of statutory rape. Something about my age (17) related to her age (15) at the time seems to prevent that. If, however, I was, say, a Libra and not a Gemini, I might have been in serious, serious trouble, as the difference 'twixt 17 and 18 would have been huge. It's not like she's going to complain, and it's not like she hasn't actually violated a different statute. Having, in her 20s, once taken a lover who was 16, she is definitely in violation of the law, but then again, it's not like her partner on that occasion is going to complain.

But there are laws which, despite the age of consent being 16, forbid sexual contact between adults and minors.

Sure, the age of consent is 16, but I'm presently 28, and I guarantee you I can get at least five years for having sex with a 16 year-old. At least, in Washington. I always wondered, then, what would happen if I left the country, took a child bride of 10 or 11, and returned to the United States.

Of course, that in itself is a digression that we need not follow at the moment. :D So shoot the little cretins! I'll help, sheesh, I'll even pay for bullets. And since I'm climbing down Adam's throat for flippancy, it's worth pointing out that at the University of Oregon, when I was there, a group called Men Against Rape (whose organizing body and membership consisted entirely of two gay men) proposed some insidious rules against date rape inspired by rules enacted elsewhere in the country. Under such a rule, the woman must answer affirmatively. Thus:

•*May I kiss you?
--Yes.
• May I touch your breasts?
--Yes.
• Would you mind if I unhook your bra?
--No, I wouldn't mind.

At this point, I would be sexually assaulting you because the answer was not phrased in the affirmative. (This I would find hilarious if it wasn't so morbid and the impact so severe.)

Or the he-said/she-saids of date rape ... oh, wait ... you're definitely already in on that point. Rape is difficult to prove conclusively, and I shan't hound the point.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

At this point, I would be sexually assaulting you because the answer was not phrased in the affirmative. (This I would find hilarious if it wasn't so morbid and the impact so severe.)

I find it both morbid, horrible, and utterly hilarious. Perhaps both parties could sign a contract?

"The promisee agrees to swallow in consideration of the promisor's cooking breakfast, with the understanding that neither party will partially breach said contract out of a sudden sense of shyness..."

Has been a while since I studied contract law. We could also get into a legalistic debate over whether a low, wordless moan constitutes a promise in se....drat, even my Latin is rusty.

As for the age of consent, another factor comes into play:
In many states, the age of consent is higher for homosexual acts.

Not only that, but statutory rape laws are rather confusing. Can a fourteen year old properly consent? It really does depend on the fourteen year old. I probably could have, but many women could not have given meaningfull consent at that age.

Re: Date rape, I never understood the distinction. I imagine it would be just as devastating to be raped no matter who the perpetrator was. And if it is a matter of "I did not really want to, but went along with him just the same", that cannot constitute rape.

Indeed, even a case of rape that left physical evidence could be explained away.

Whatever. In addition to what you think being quite irrelevant to the reality of the situation, you have yet to address what to do about the fact that we are, indeed, breeding criminals with prisons.

Last time I checked, 70% of people passing through prisons committed crimes again once released. Often worse crimes. Absolutely, prisons turn petty thieves into truly dangerous bastards. This needs to be worked on in two ways: a prison system as already described, which seperates the violent offenders from the non-violent; and overall social changes which introduce the idea that material wealth isn't so damn great. Of course, for anyone to believe that you actually have to wipe out poverty and starvation.


The cruelty of your proposed solution means we ought to just expand the application of capital punishment. Of course, you're quite flippant (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=96776#post96776) toward that, as well, so ....

Whatever.

Cruelty? How so? Nice to toss out such terms, but how do you possibly arrive at them? I recommend removing from society those already proven to be dangerous to that society's members. And temporarily imprisoning non-violent offenders and giving them opportunities at education and rehabilitation. I'm starting to suspet you have not actually read my posts but like to toss out this rhetoric just for a laugh.


What do you recommend we do, then, about the criminals we have to let out? Just ... uh ... hang them (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=96862#post96862) instead of letting them out?

A figure of speech. I have made quite clear in other threads why I do not like capital punishment.


So here's a great question for you, What do you do with the ones you let out of prison?

All covered quite extensively, and many times over for you. Those who are non-violent get education and rehabilitation if they want it. If they commit crimes again, they go back in.


And while you're at it, would you like to hang the people with a human conscience, as well?That's not an answer but an admission that you have none. You demonstrate your failure to grasp the situation:What, pray tell, does this have to do with anything?

Again, I have covered my position on capital punishment thoroughly in other threads. Again, I must assume you simply do not read what people post. Maybe you are too eager to skip past it all and make your points, such as this one. I had thought better of you. But this entire paragraph of yours clearly says "I have not read, or choose to ignore, everything you have said about your position on capital punishment".


Perhaps an explanation about taverns in the US: the bartender served her. The waitress served her. She got through the door at all and this isn't supposed to happen. You have to be 21 to enter the establishment in many states, and you cannot buy alcohol at all if you're not 21. So, uh ... what, would you like every guy to have their laptop networked with the department of licensing to validate the ID of every woman they come across before sleeping with her? Excuse me, but would you submit a blood sample so I can get a genetic test to determine that you are the person your ID says you are so that I can't be prosecuted for believing that you are, in fact, of age, since everyone under the sun seems to think you're 22?

I'm not sure about the laws there, but here, as long as the ID has been checked, it is not the responsibility of the bar or its staff. I don't see that they've broken any laws, at least not our laws. Not sure about there. As for the guy you know, his behaviour, well, maybe picking up drunk girls for a shag upon first meeting them is an indication of poor judgement in general. Maybe he's not a nice chap. Maybe he's a great chap. I don't know. But those laws, as I said, are there to protect young people from older people. They need to exist. The girl should have been charged for possessing and using a fake ID. Maybe also charged as a minor for unlawful sexual activity, whatever it's called there. Of course for her to be charged in such a manner, her unwillingness would have to be proven. What this comes down to, if you wish to void the standing laws designed to protect children, is that you need to scan peoples' brains and discover their thoughts and motives regarding the events. Would that not violate your ideas on civili rights?


Would you like another swing at it?

And, yes, you can go now.

Whiffffff ....

As you know (I hope), it's very schoolyard-ish when people put such things in their posts. It indicates only negative personality traits. In future, perhaps you should refrain from poking your tongue out and calling people names, and just stick to the material at hand. But then, I recall in our first discussion, when I mentioned the abstract concepts involved in the USA's actions in Afghanistan, you read the words the way you wanted and assumed I thought the USA was a paragon of virtue. This type of interpretation is something I try not to do, as it is rarely productive.

Cruelty? How so? Nice to toss out such terms, but how do you possibly arrive at them?What, are you or I in Singapore? Or is the term "human rights" a mere slogan in Australia, too? Concrete boxes, reduced spending? I've got this perverse image in my head, from the movie Airplane: Jimmy, have you ever been inside a Turkish prison? How low do you spend? Something about concrete boxes?

Hmmm ... nearly $4 billion a year to incarcerate the rapists on college campuses in the United States ... a drug war that merely starts with millions of people smoking dope ... that prison cost will eventually suck up the economy. At some point, we have to economize. Just expand the application of the death penalty, then, if human rights are of no real concern.

Ooh, how about bamboo cages, outdoors in the winter? It's probably cheaper than concrete boxes.

Cruelty is the end result of what you propose.I recommend removing from society those already proven to be dangerous to that society's members. And temporarily imprisoning non-violent offenders and giving them opportunities at education and rehabilitation. I'm starting to suspet you have not actually read my posts but like to toss out this rhetoric just for a laugh. Well? How low do you spend on the maximum-security prisons? Even accommodating human rights has a financial price. I take it removing from society, in the cases of the violent offenders, is permanent, then? Well and fine. Now, what's the point of that? Anything short of permanent incarceration for any criminal will require that they be reintroduced into society at some point. Thus, since you keep insisting on your distinction, well?

And why would I not read your posts? It's not like they're particularly long or deal with particularly difficult concepts. And that's what I find so bothersome about your proposed solution. It's far too simplistic. For instance: I have made quite clear in other threads why I do not like capital punishment. Why, then, advocate conditions that make it the preferable alternative?

Consider, for instance, the present situation in the United States. Take, for instance, Aaron McKinney, convicted in the murder of Matthew Shepherd. In order to ensure that he never leaves prison, he was sentenced to two life terms in a special agreement by which the victim's family requested that the court not sentence him to death. Essentially, a "life sentence" does not mean you're in for the rest of your life. Typically, once you are deemed too old to be of any danger, you are paroled in order to reduce your impact on the state budget. This is also, apparently, considered a humane gesture. Of course, when you're sentenced to "25 years to life" for having drugs, it's definitely a humane gesture to parole the guy or give him amnesty as soon as possible. But that's beside the point.

What do we seek, though, when we choose to incarcerate a person for the rest of their natural life instead of simply terminate them?

And why, then, reduce that existence to something so animal? Is it really a craving inside us to enjoy that revenge? It is, as you pointed out, expensive revenge. So, then, how low would you like the expense to be? Half that? A quarter? If they're never coming out and we're submitting them to a subhuman existence, it seems more reasonable to simply put them to death. I, too, am an opponent of capital punishment, but I am a proponent of human dignity under all circumstances.

I suppose we could take all those hardened, violent criminals to an island somewhere and just leave them. That might work, eh? That way they're out of our society, our financial obligation is lessened, and we don't ever have to ask ourselves why we're locking people up in little concrete boxes. All covered quite extensively, and many times over for you. Those who are non-violent get education and rehabilitation if they want it. If they commit crimes again, they go back in. Yes, yes, yes, but I don't think it's covered adequately. After all, didn't I read somewhere that In Australia, prisoners cost us around $55,000 each per year. That's more than my father ever made in a year. They get TV, internet, sports, free medical care, free food, arts and crafts classes, "rehabilitation", and more. I'm so damn happy these murderers and rapists are so well looked after...Why are you focusing on the murderers and rapists? Oh, they get out of prison sometimes? Well, I think we've solved that with little concrete boxes or the executioner's star. But I think neither you nor I would expect the rehabilitation and education of the nonviolent criminals to be volunteered to the state. It's nice to focus one's contempt toward murderers and rapists, but not all of 'em ar ein for that, right?Again, I have covered my position on capital punishment thoroughly in other threads. Again, I must assume you simply do not read what people post. Maybe you are too eager to skip past it all and make your points, such as this one. I had thought better of you. But this entire paragraph of yours clearly says "I have not read, or choose to ignore, everything you have said about your position on capital punishment". And now I shall turn the accusation back at you. What was the point of compressing that citation as you did?

• The line about hanging the rapists points well toward your poor regard for this topic. You know, how you took issue with the notion that you're flippant toward the death penalty?

• Your inadequate answer pertains to your insistence on narrowing down the topic to murderers and rapists the way you did in your initial response to my three pointed questions. I still don't know why you insist on narrowing your perspective and then pointing out your broader perspective. Despite the fact that your proposed solution is inadequate, unless it's just another flippant figure of speech, I wonder why you're so focused on the murderers and rapists whom you would wish to treat worse than death. To simply declare a point covered and pointles is ... here, let me borrow a term from you: school-yardish. You chose a generalized point that I don't think is appropriate within the framework of the considerations. And, all things considered, I'm having trouble reconciling the notion that what you have apparently covered the pointless point with is a proposition that makes capital punishment a better alternative for both sides.

• Your demonstrated failure to grasp the situation pertains to your statutory-rape paragraph, which now overlooks the nature of your proposed solution. At least half the judges he could have come across would have either acquitted him, thrown out a jury's conviction, or reduced the conviction to a much lesser charge. But no ... a concrete box for a guy whose only crime appears to be not having a direct connection to Oregon's Department of Motor Vehicles.

• What, pray tell, does this have to do with anything? I'm inclined to ask that question again, considering that odd citation of yours. But this refers to the fact that your statutory-rape response had nothing to do with the paragraph you were responding to.I'm not sure about the laws there, but here, as long as the ID has been checked, it is not the responsibility of the bar or its staff. I don't see that they've broken any laws, at least not our laws. Not sure about there. As for the guy you know, his behaviour, well, maybe picking up drunk girls for a shag upon first meeting them is an indication of poor judgement in general. Maybe he's not a nice chap. Maybe he's a great chap. I don't know. But those laws, as I said, are there to protect young people from older people. They need to exist. The girl should have been charged for possessing and using a fake ID. Maybe also charged as a minor for unlawful sexual activity, whatever it's called there. Of course for her to be charged in such a manner, her unwillingness would have to be proven. What this comes down to, if you wish to void the standing laws designed to protect children, is that you need to scan peoples' brains and discover their thoughts and motives regarding the events. Would that not violate your ideas on civili rights? I'll compress this one to a simple question which you seem to be missing entirely: How the f--k are you supposed to know how old a female is if she's drinking on an ID that gets her through the door of the bar you're at? Hello? What, the bar gets away with serving a minor because they thought she was old enough but the guy gets sent up for having sex with her while believing her to be old enough? That belief being fostered by ... what? Oh, her deception?

And that's a great idea, too: let's charge as many people with crimes as possible. Unlawful sexual activity for a minor? Yeah, I don't care about your prison classifications on this one: she doesn't go to prison. Well, now that he has, I'm perfectly willing to send her for a civil rights violation.

Void the standing laws to protect children? Where on earth do you get that?! :bugeye: As you know (I hope), it's very schoolyard-ish when people put such things in their posts. It indicates only negative personality traits. In future, perhaps you should refrain from poking your tongue out and calling people names, and just stick to the material at hand. But then, I recall in our first discussion, when I mentioned the abstract concepts involved in the USA's actions in Afghanistan, you read the words the way you wanted and assumed I thought the USA was a paragon of virtue. This type of interpretation is something I try not to do, as it is rarely productive.Well, how patient would you like me to be? I personally find your statutory-rape response offensive in its irrelevance. Please, don't bug me with such moralistic, high-minded crap as the above-cited paragraph. You aren't treating this topic particularly seriously, you're advocating conditions more cruel than that which you oppose, and you accuse me of not reading your posts while absolutely blowing mine out your left ear. Give me a break :rolleyes:

Oh, that's right, I forgot such things are inappropriate for you.

The consistency with which you're missing the point indicates that it's deliberate. Why deliberate? Because our past conversations have not hinted that you're actually as stupid as your statutory-rape response, and because our past conversations have indicated that you're capable of seeing the greater ramifications of what might seem like a good idea, e.g. concrete boxes, reductions of prison spending on severe criminals (a necessary lowering of prison conditions). Geez, Adam, what is your difficulty with this one?

I'll have to dig up the Afghanistan post. In the meantime, either give better attention to the portions of my posts you choose to read and respond to or don't bother. And stuff the hypocritical, moralistic crap back where it belongs, please.

Concrete boxes ... and you oppose capital punishment. :rolleyes:

How low, Adam? What number is satisfactory to you? Help me clear that up, since your concrete boxes bit might be just another flippant figure of speech, and I might be seeing too severe a degree of reduction of spending as noted in your proposed solution.

Oh, and as a final note, I've been banging around in my head the notion that cultural differences might be interfering in our communication. The bit about ID's and bars, however, suggests otherwise. Maybe nobody ever goes to prison unjustly in Australia. Maybe people aren't convicted of crimes they didn't commit in Australia. Maybe Australians are smart enough to not house non-violent criminals with violent criminals, and maybe they haven't learned how to arbitrarily classify crimes in accord with sentiment. Please understand, it's not that I'm ignoring your proposed solution, but that its implementation on our side of the ocean is a hideous nightmare.

--Tiassa :cool:

A possibility for a reasonable prison system:

Have several classes of prisons, with different levels of expenditure per prisoner. This would hopefully prevent the state spending more on a serial killer's welfare than my father makes in an entire year.

Example:

CLASS ONE
- Strictly non-violent criminals. Possibly also those who commit crimes where harm is extremely doubtful or the prisoner goes in on a technicality alone, such as in the case of the young girl with the fake ID.
- Education, rehabilitation, reasonable living conditions. Good monitoring services. For prisoner safety, monitor everywhere. No privacy, but hey, they're in jail because they screwed people over. They can deal with it for a while. Possibly have an independent body monitor the entire system, at their own expense, such as Amnesty International.

CLASS TWO
- Violent offenders who have caused physical or emotional harm, but not of a permanent nature. Break someone's spine by drinking and driving, you go in here. Beat someone with a stick and take their eye out, you go in here.
- Again have monitoring everywhere, and again allow supervision by an independent agency. Spend less than Class One on education and such. Keep it above the minimum requirements of internatiponal law, but don't blow excess money on them.

CLASS THREE
- Violent offenders who have caused permanent physical and emotional damage.
- Keep it above minimum requirements of international law, but no more. A room, food and water, exercise. No internet, no large screen TVs, no extraneous expenses. They deliberately harmed society; society has no obligation to provide them luxuries. Allow independent bodies to provide luxuries if they wish, as long as the public is not forced to pay for it.

----------------------------------


What, are you or I in Singapore? Or is the term "human rights" a mere slogan in Australia, too? Concrete boxes, reduced spending? I've got this perverse image in my head, from the movie Airplane: Jimmy, have you ever been inside a Turkish prison? How low do you spend? Something about concrete boxes?

What is wrong with reduced spending? You say the words as though they represent a disease or such. Reduced spending on a state's necessities is a good thing. A state is in bad health when standing expenses continually increase. As for the images you hold in your head, that is not my fault or my concern. How low do you spend? As covered above in Class Three.


Hmmm ... nearly $4 billion a year to incarcerate the rapists on college campuses in the United States ... a drug war that merely starts with millions of people smoking dope ... that prison cost will eventually suck up the economy. At some point, we have to economize. Just expand the application of the death penalty, then, if human rights are of no real concern.

I don't know why you point this out to me in particular. These figures indicate no flaw with my ideas, but rather a huge flaw with the USA. And once again, I do not support the death penalty.


Cruelty is the end result of what you propose.

In all that rhetoric, you have yet to explain how. In almost every post you make, you demand (and yes, you have used the word "demand") explanations from people. Your turn.


I take it removing from society, in the cases of the violent offenders, is permanent, then? Well and fine. Now, what's the point of that?

The point is to protect the people who don't go about hurting others for their own gratification. Very simple.


Anything short of permanent incarceration for any criminal will require that they be reintroduced into society at some point. Thus, since you keep insisting on your distinction, well?

As explained several times. If they hurt people permanently, they suffer a permanent consequence. That's called justice. If they hurt people temporarily, they suffer a temporary punishment. Nice and fair.


And why would I not read your posts? It's not like they're particularly long or deal with particularly difficult concepts.

Indeed. I find it best, for the good of all, to make points briefly and simply, to be understood by the lowest common denominator. If it takes ten pages to make a point that can be made in one sentence, you are probably doing something wrong.


Why, then, advocate conditions that make it the preferable alternative?

If those who have permanently injured others prefer suicide to their permanent incarceration, that is their choice. I would not take away that little bit of ultimate free will. That makes me a lot nicer than someone who takes away a person's life or sense of security without asking, such as a murderer or rapist.


What do we seek, though, when we choose to incarcerate a person for the rest of their natural life instead of simply terminate them?

Death is not my preference. Justice is. If you take someone's life, you lose yours; not through more death, but through incarceration.


And why, then, reduce that existence to something so animal? Is it really a craving inside us to enjoy that revenge?

I'd be happy for serial killers to live in the Hilton hotel if the security was adequate and it did not come out of the state's pockets. As before: spend the bare minimum to keep living conditions adequate to suit international laws. The public should be under no obligation to spend more than that on people who tried to hurt them.


I, too, am an opponent of capital punishment, but I am a proponent of human dignity under all circumstances.

I wish I could tell you about a certain person who might change your mind about this, at least regarding certain types of criminals. But I can't, it's not my place to tell. I will say, however, that there are some individuals who deserve nothing good at all from anyone.


I suppose we could take all those hardened, violent criminals to an island somewhere and just leave them. That might work, eh? That way they're out of our society, our financial obligation is lessened, and we don't ever have to ask ourselves why we're locking people up in little concrete boxes.

Well, it's been done so many times before. Occasionally with very productive results: Australia. Although to us they also sent petty thieves and such. The only problem is where? Sacrifice some of your own territory for these people, or ask someone else to take them? If the loss of the territory you sacrifice ends up costing the state less than the expense of imprisoning these people, then I see only one problem with it. They would still be considered under that state's jurisdiction unless the state ceded all sovereign rights to that land, and as such might be required to look after them by international law. The expenses would then not end unless the land was given away. For strategic purposes, that land would then have to be far away, else you invite another state to simply walk in and set up shop on your doorstep. Overall, if the state can simply dump them elsewhere, it is preferable to both the death penalty and permanent incarceration. The state's only continuing duty is then in customs and border-control, ensuring the person does not enter the country. Inform all other nations of the person's identity, criminal record, and location and they'll probably keep him/her out too. They won't have many places to go, but they'll be free to make of life what they will. Personally I don't think they should be rewarded for their crimes with such freedom. But since you brought it up...


And now I shall turn the accusation back at you. What was the point of compressing that citation as you did?

Just wondering why you insisted on mentioning the death penalty all the ime.


I'll compress this one to a simple question which you seem to be missing entirely: How the f--k are you supposed to know how old a female is if she's drinking on an ID that gets her through the door of the bar you're at? Hello? What, the bar gets away with serving a minor because they thought she was old enough but the guy gets sent up for having sex with her while believing her to be old enough? That belief being fostered by ... what? Oh, her deception?

I believe I covered this as well, when I mentioned the girl being charged with possession and use of a fake ID. How are you supposed to know? Maybe brainscans. Some courts in the USA are allowing them now I believe. If the defendent did not know, and the girl used a fake ID, the guy walks free. And yes, the bar does get away with it. The bar is not responsible for perfect testing of all IDs which pass through.


Well, how patient would you like me to be? I personally find your statutory-rape response offensive in its irrelevance. Please, don't bug me with such moralistic, high-minded crap as the above-cited paragraph.

I try to rarely allow morals and emotions into these posts. They distract from logic. 1+1=2. Take a life, lose your life. Although it does happen now and then. I'm sorry if you allow emotions to colour what you read so that you find this offensive, but once again, I can not be at fault for the images in your head.


Oh, that's right, I forgot such things are inappropriate for you.

I would bet your left nut that you have very little idea what is or isn't appropriate for me.


What number is satisfactory to you? Help me clear that up, since your concrete boxes bit might be just another flippant figure of speech, and I might be seeing too severe a degree of reduction of spending as noted in your proposed solution.

Indeed, "concrete boxes" represents, in my usage, the least expense which meets the requirements of international law.


Your demonstrated failure to grasp the situation...

Nice assumption there.

Thanks for your understanding. After my post, I was hoping you wouldnt take it like I was mad or anything. I was just trying to provide a little insight from the other side. And it is a subject I feel strongly about, I watch people throw their lives away and then try to put the blame on their "hard lives" - which isnt right.

Thanks:)


Groove on

“Well here’s a thought,” Counterbalance offered foolishly.

Adam & Tiassa,

It’s obvious that you both have wit, wisdom and “spirit.“ Any chance you could mix all of this into a proposal for a solution? Keeping in mind that this will call for some compromising on both sides, and with full realization that no one ever really wants to compromise... I mean, sure. It’s only Sciforums and you can pound on each other for the helluva it. You can stick to your guns. But how are any of the world’s most pressing problems ever going to be fixed? What’s the priority here? To bitch? Or to do something?

There’s been some interesting suggestions offered on this thread. LOTS of food for thought. Is it just not appealing to anybody to try to work with this?

~~~

Counterbalance

*Adam smacks Counterbalance over the head with a giant frying pan*

Compromise this! :p

you have been reading Xev's stuff to much, Now you even SOUND like her:D

Why oh why do you wish to deny me one of the few pleasures left to me
in life? Do you have a thing against senior citizens who still dream of being a fire belching dragon at times. :D

Deny you? Never!! It’s just that I’ve come to know a few dragons in my time. Two things I’ve learned about “old” dragons: (1) The older they get, the craftier they get. (2) A dragon never loses his ability to belch fire. Oh, and one more... (3) The leading cause of death for dragons is self-conflagration! :eek:

So take care there, “sparky“ ... ;)

CB

~~~~~~~

Yo Adam!

I got yer compromise, buckeroo...

:cool:

That was THREE things
oh well back to prep for you:D

What is wrong with reduced spending? You say the words as though they represent a disease or such. Reduced spending on a state's necessities is a good thing. A state is in bad health when standing expenses continually increase. As for the images you hold in your head, that is not my fault or my concern. How low do you spend? As covered above in Class Three.Though I would not permit such conditions in my own country without protest, I fully accept your revision of the prison classifications in terms of our debate.I don't know why you point this out to me in particular. These figures indicate no flaw with my ideas, but rather a huge flaw with the USA. And once again, I do not support the death penaltyI point it out to you because you lamented the amount spent on prisoners each year. And while I recognize your declaration that you do not support capital punishment, I still feel that the prior conditions described by your classification of prisons allowed such indecent conditions that capital punishment would be morally acceptable compared to what you proposed. Your revised condition, while I still find it unsatisfactory for implementation in the United States for a couple of reasons, does recognize human rights directly and, well, I'm not going to complain about that.

The couple of reasons, though, might strictly reflect American justice. We classify crimes inappropriately, and often sentences are reduced in light of the Eighth Amendment, and convictions are often overturned because, if you'd read the FAMM site, at least, or even the Beets material, you'd find that justice is not blind, there is no equal protection under the law except in theory, and how much money you have makes all the difference in the world.In all that rhetoric, you have yet to explain how. In almost every post you make, you demand (and yes, you have used the word "demand") explanations from people. Your turn.Okay:

(1) Which use of the word "demand" are you referring to?

• Since you simply note that I use the word demand, here's a search of my use of the word; there's 109 results (not counting this present post) (http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=23503&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending) for you to consider, and I would like to know which one you are referring to. I'm not going to contest that responding to my posts can be more demanding than some posters are willing to put up with, but which one would you like me to explain to you?

(2) Okay--your revised prison classifications are a big help toward resolving the difficulties I have with your position. Easy enough? Concrete boxes for the rest of one's life? Cruel and unusual. At that point, it would be more merciful to kill them. Your revised conditions, however, while I disagree with their implementation in my own society due to the nature of how and why we put people in prison, In fact, your new class 1 presents an interesting question with its "technicality[/i] note. Are you still talking about putting the girl in prison, or are you saying ignorance of her true age in the face of deception is no excuse under the law? Well, guess what: one of the reasons prisoners have the "luxury" of education and other resources is in case they would like to appeal their conviction and have grounds to do so. By stripping those tools away, the only conclusion I can find is that, should evidence arise that the convict is actually innocent, then ignorance is not bliss and everyone from the arresting officers to the prosecuting attorney to the judge and jury needs to go to jail for hurting an innocent person by their actions. It's a result of the conditions you're describing, on the one hand. If you're talking about throwing the girl in prison for using a fake ID and getting laid, I think psychiatric counseling would do best. But, yes, she should go to prison for being a part of why that particular guy got sent up. Her dad, too.The point is to protect the people who don't go about hurting others for their own gratification. Very simple.True enough. The United States is already the world's foremost prison-state. I wonder what the 65-and-older prison would look like. Now then, forty years in a concrete box is a far cry from forty years of minimal human rights recognition. I still find it to be cruel given the nature of justice in my own country, but that's why we have the Eighth Amendment. What's your definition of permanent hurt, though? Physical only or physical and mental?Indeed. I find it best, for the good of all, to make points briefly and simply, to be understood by the lowest common denominator. If it takes ten pages to make a point that can be made in one sentence, you are probably doing something wrong.I find it best to try to cover a broad perspective. It does, quite often, allow me to reach issues that prevent me having to revise the standard upon which I enter a debate and to which I repeatedly demand that people refer regardless of what they're actually saying. Oh, well. It's a mere difference of methodology.If those who have permanently injured others prefer suicide to their permanent incarceration, that is their choice. I would not take away that little bit of ultimate free will. That makes me a lot nicer than someone who takes away a person's life or sense of security without asking, such as a murderer or rapist.Ah, the old, lets treat them cruelly and if they don't like it they can kill themselves response? Wait ... it's not that old. But it is quite ridiculous. And, yes, you're a lot nicer ... :rolleyes: All I can say is you'd better be damn sure that you're sentencing for the right thing. Consider Betty Lou Beets--yes, she killed someone, but the jury that convicted her and resulted in her death sentence never got to hear about the physical abuse wrought upon her by her husband, and never got to see the photos taken after she received beatings. Indeed, what her husband began, Texas finished.Death is not my preference. Justice is. If you take someone's life, you lose yours; not through more death, but through incarceration.Ah, drawing out the process of dying as long as possible.I'd be happy for serial killers to live in the Hilton hotel if the security was adequate and it did not come out of the state's pockets. As before: spend the bare minimum to keep living conditions adequate to suit international laws. The public should be under no obligation to spend more than that on people who tried to hurt them.Funny, the public, given a chance, frequently votes to raise their prison expenses. Mandatory minimums have that effect. The privatization of prisons is currently under review; it sounds cheaper but it may not be, since the state has to pay rent instead of directly administrating the prisons.I wish I could tell you about a certain person who might change your mind about this, at least regarding certain types of criminals. But I can't, it's not my place to tell. I will say, however, that there are some individuals who deserve nothing good at all from anyone.Unless I happen to be God I have no right to make that determination of my fellow human being. And, since I'm not God .... The only problem is where? Sacrifice some of your own territory for these people, or ask someone else to take them?Well, you know, we bought Alaska for a ridiculously-low price. Monitoring them would be no different in the Aleutians than, say, any other place our warships cruise past every once in a while. And the cost of removing people who are already there? What's the cost of a military operation? Considerably less than buying them out, and what is the greater trend in the United States' history?

As a matter of fact, a local tribe did that recently; I forget what the crime actually was, but instead of sending two teenagers to prison, the tribal council intervened, claimed jurisdiction, and sentenced them both to a period of surviving on an empty island. People applauded that decision. It builds character, they say.Just wondering why you insisted on mentioning the death penalty all the ime.And what, pray tell, does that have to do with the cited text? A couple of different posts and also a question asked in response to your statutory-rape digression?I believe I covered this as well, when I mentioned the girl being charged with possession and use of a fake ID. How are you supposed to know? Maybe brainscans. Some courts in the USA are allowing them now I believe. If the defendent did not know, and the girl used a fake ID, the guy walks free. And yes, the bar does get away with it. The bar is not responsible for perfect testing of all IDs which pass through.Okay, point resolved for my purposes. Even into the beginning of the post I'm responding to, you're not clear on what happens to the guy. Alright, now that you are clarifying, please skip the "I believe I covered this already" idea since it's only at this point in your post that you're actually covering the issue. :rolleyes: I try to rarely allow morals and emotions into these posts. They distract from logic. 1+1=2. Take a life, lose your life. Although it does happen now and then. I'm sorry if you allow emotions to colour what you read so that you find this offensive, but once again, I can not be at fault for the images in your head.Yes, but in this case, you could well include logic. And yes, you are guided by your emotions. Eye-for-an-eye is an emotional response, and not always a well-considered intellectual response. As noted, to imprison someone permanently and deny them resources beyond the minimum of conventional human rights, you'd better be damn sure of what you're convicting someone of and why.I would bet your left nut that you have very little idea what is or isn't appropriate for me.Well, you're the one who complained about my rolling of the eyes (I think you said poking out your tongue) being inappropriate. And I noticed that you didn't bet your own left nut. Hmmm ... probably a good thing. But no, I wouldn't want it anyway. However, I was merely recognizing your standard of debate.Indeed, "concrete boxes" represents, in my usage, the least expense which meets the requirements of international law.I'd have to read the policy on what kind of concrete boxes the nations have agreed to, but if you say so ... :bugeye: Nice assumption there.I don't find it an assumption. After all, you did demonstratively miss the point with your statutory-rape responses until you finally cleared them up in the post I'm responding to. And you did eventually revise your written standard of prison classifications, which shows me that you are indeed starting to grasp the situation. Now, I'm off to find the International Concrete Box Conventions.

Of course, once I agree to the Concrete Boxes, I'll have to fight to amend the US Constitution.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

It’s only Sciforums and you can pound on each other for the helluva it. You can stick to your guns. But how are any of the world’s most pressing problems ever going to be fixed? What’s the priority here? To bitch? Or to do something?That's something I think everybody who ever gets into a deeper debate here thinks about at one time or another. In general, four things strike me:

• To disseminate information to others (spread the word)
•*To examine one's own standards, morals, &c.
• To change someone's perspective.
• To affirm one's own standards, morals, &c.

There are of course, other reasons. I learn a great deal about people through Sciforums debates, despite how I myself might apply the above four points in my own posts. Some people--okay, I'll leave the religious debates out of it, but there are, I suppose reasons, for some of the pointlessness that goes on in that forum. Not a fan of them, but if I leave the reasons and justifications to each person regarding their own presence here, yeah, I can see a reason for it.

What's really funny is that your dragon bit to Chagur actually has me thinking about evolution, mythology, and the structure of the human eye. So there's that, too ... the undeniable weave of all things. I think we all learn more from one another than we realize. Of course, that's true in life, too.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Thank you for your observations ... and just to put you concern to rest,
if there be one, I began wearing Nomex long johns a good while ago.

Take care ;)

Inmate saved by DNA dives into life, political debate (http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/0410kronefolo10.html), from the Arizona Republic newspaper:As former death row inmate Ray Krone celebrated his first full day of freedom Tuesday by taking a swim and eating steak, national justice groups used his decadelong ordeal to press for an end to capital punishment.

Krone was freed from prison after serving 10 years for a murder he didn't commit.

He is the 100th condemned American to be freed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 and, as such, instantly emerged as a poster child in the national debate.Death row aside, the alternative could have been a concrete box?

And a link to a Richard Ruelas editorial (http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0410ruelas10.html) from the same newspaper:The court found Krone guilty, too. Twice. Juries were convinced by bite marks left on the victim, waitress Kim Ancona. Krone had been in a car wreck that broke his jaw. The resulting surgical repair left him with some teeth jutting sideways, giving him a distinctive bite.

The juries were told that bite marks are the least effective means of identification. The second jury was also told there was blood on the scene that didn't match the victim or Krone.

It didn't matter.

He spent more than 10 years in prison before DNA tests released last week showed he wasn't the murderer.My only question is how easy would it be for a man like Krone to fight for his life from a concrete box?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

... I fully accept your revision of the prison classifications in terms of our debate.

I don't see how I revised them. You should be a politician.

I have absoltuely no intention of readingthrough 109 posts inlcuding the word "demand".


Are you still talking about putting the girl in prison, or are you saying ignorance of her true age in the face of deception is no excuse under the law?

A
Ignorance of a girl's age alone can not be a valid defence under a standardised, equitable law. If it was, a forty-year-old man could rape a three year old girl and say to the judge "Sorry, your honour, I thought she was twenty-five." Obviously an excessive example to make apoint. Ignorance is not a very good defence. Once again, it would need to be proven, possibly by brain-scans.I can't recall the name of the technique currently being used in some places in courts, but I do recall the proponents in New Scientist magazine saying it was morereliable than fingerprints. I don't have the magazines with me here at university, so unfortunately I can't dig up all the info. However, once again, I'm not sure I like the idea of taking a first step down theroad tolegal brain-tapping/mind-reading.


If you're talking about throwing the girl in prison for using a fake ID and getting laid, I think psychiatric counseling would do best.

Personal insults aside, I would suggest fines and/or community service.


The United States is already the world's foremost prison-state.

I heard somewhere that around one-quarter of the entire world's prison inmates are in the USA. Quite silly. A very good indicator that the system there does not work. I suppose it is understandable why you have the attitudes you seem to, coming from that background.


What's your definition of permanent hurt, though? Physical only or physical and mental?

Permanent physical injury needs no further definition. Mental wouldbebest left for definition by more qualified people than me, psychologistsperhaps. But I would think anything resulting from a crime which alters a person's behaviour permanently, or such. For example agirl I know who was raped, she rarely goes out anywhere, never alone,and she barely trusts anyone. She also has an eating disorder which put her in hospital earlier this year. I would consider that permanent mental injury.


Ah, the old, lets treat them cruelly and if they don't like it they can kill themselves response? Wait ... it's not that old. But it is quite ridiculous.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission would seem to disagree with you. As mentioned before, I recommend a prison system in accordance with their guidelines.

As for Betty Lou Beets, did the photographs of her apparent abuse actually exist? I do not know the case. However, here in Melbourne several years ago, there was a test case introducing laws regarding whatthey call "batteredd wife syndrome". A woman killed her husband, and claimed he had beaten her badly for years. She spent two weeks in prison. As I recall, there was absolutely no evidence to support her claims, and all the character witnessesclaimed there was never any sign of anything wrong. Basically she got away with murder because the courts (the politicians) wanted to introduce these new laws, set a precedent. Evidence is a good thing.



Death is not my preference. Justice is. If you take someone's life, you lose yours; not through more death, but through incarceration.

Ah, drawing out the process of dying as long as possible.

We are all dying, if you want to look at it that way. There is no difference in that regard if they are in prison or free. The state is not reducing their lifespan at all, merely removing the danger they represent from society.


Funny, the public, given a chance, frequently votes to raise their prison expenses. Mandatory minimums have that effect. The privatization of prisons is currently under review; it sounds cheaper but it may not be, since the state has to pay rent instead of directly administrating the prisons.

We have the opposite situation here. I believe most Australians wantless spent on criminals. As for mandatory minimum sentences, I believe that was tried here in the Northern Territory as a test, and everyonecomplained about the ridiculous results; I think the entire idea is being dumped, not sure. Our prisons here are being privatised,the resonsibility is now moving to private companies, and they are watched by a government agency and various lobby groups. I believe the first company to take on a prison near Melbourne wants to pull out of the deal, as it's a lot harder than they expected.


Unless I happen to be God I have no right to make that determination of my fellow human being. And, since I'm not God...

Well, I never understood that position. One, I'm an atheist. Two, I firmly believe it is not only our right but our duty to judge each other. If such was not the case, there would have been no reason whatsoever to fight against Hitler. Judge not, and ye shall be crapped upon.


Even into the beginning of the post I'm responding to, you're not clear on what happens to the guy.

If you don't like brain-scans and truth drugs, I suggest he does some time. Preferably in minimum security, something like the Class One system I presented. Why? See point A well above. Ignorance alone can not be a valid defence unless proven, maybe not even then. I would prefer, however, that such a sentence might be voided if the girl made a full confession and it was proven that the guy was duped. That would be fair.


Yes, but in this case, you could well include logic. And yes, you are guided by your emotions. Eye-for-an-eye is an emotional response, and not always a well-considered intellectual response.

I don't see wheremy logic has failed. Please point it out. I don't suggest these possibilities for eye-for-an-eye, but for a reasonable and fair solution. I see it as fair that a society should be protected from those who deliberately harm it.


And I noticed that you didn't bet your own left nut.

I'm not crazy.

As for concrete boxes - again - I refer to the minimum agreed upon standards for imprisonment of criminals.

AdamI don't see how I revised them. You should be a politicianWell ...Maybe have different classes of prisons based on the type of crime, but have those classes also determine the amount of money spent on those imprisoned.

1) Non-violent offenders. White collar crims. Surveillance, reasonable food and lodgings, maybe some efforts at rehabilitation and education.

2) Violent offenders who caused no permanent loss, no permanent physical or emotional injury. Spend a middling amount of money and effort on them.

3) Murderers, rapists, and those who have caused any other form of permanent emotional or physical injury. Put them in little concrete boxes and forget about the bastards.

(4.8.02)As compared to:Have several classes of prisons, with different levels of expenditure per prisoner. This would hopefully prevent the state spending more on a serial killer's welfare than my father makes in an entire year.

Example:

CLASS ONE
- Strictly non-violent criminals. Possibly also those who commit crimes where harm is extremely doubtful or the prisoner goes in on a technicality alone, such as in the case of the young girl with the fake ID.
- Education, rehabilitation, reasonable living conditions. Good monitoring services. For prisoner safety, monitor everywhere. No privacy, but hey, they're in jail because they screwed people over. They can deal with it for a while. Possibly have an independent body monitor the entire system, at their own expense, such as Amnesty International.

CLASS TWO
- Violent offenders who have caused physical or emotional harm, but not of a permanent nature. Break someone's spine by drinking and driving, you go in here. Beat someone with a stick and take their eye out, you go in here.
- Again have monitoring everywhere, and again allow supervision by an independent agency. Spend less than Class One on education and such. Keep it above the minimum requirements of internatiponal law, but don't blow excess money on them.

CLASS THREE
- Violent offenders who have caused permanent physical and emotional damage.
- Keep it above minimum requirements of international law, but no more. A room, food and water, exercise. No internet, no large screen TVs, no extraneous expenses. They deliberately harmed society; society has no obligation to provide them luxuries. Allow independent bodies to provide luxuries if they wish, as long as the public is not forced to pay for it.

(4.10.02)(Dates reflect GMT-8)

I see a maybe removed from Class One, as well as an additional bit about harm being doubtful and technicalities.

In Class Three I see room, not little concrete box. Furthermore, your revised Class Three says above minimum requirements of international law, whereas your defense of little concrete boxes, which, as you noted, meets the requirements of international law. In other words, the standard of little concrete boxes is apparently kept at the level of minimum requirements, not above

I do, in fact, see revisions in your proposed classifications.I have absoltuely no intention of readingthrough 109 posts inlcuding the word "demand".Well, I figured the post you were referring to would be in there. Since you already knew where it was, I made the mistake of assuming you could easily pull it out of there. Since your point was my demanding nature (not necessarily contested) and my use of the word "demand" (contested), would I be mistaken, then, to conclude that your reinforcement of your point that I demand with the note that even I use the word demand is either utterly invalid or a simple contextual mix-up?Ignorance of a girl's age alone can not be a valid defence under a standardised, equitable law. If it was, a forty-year-old man could rape a three year old girl and say to the judge "Sorry, your honour, I thought she was twenty-five." Obviously an excessive example to make apoint. Ignorance is not a very good defence. What kind of an "excessive" example is this? Quite frankly, Adam, if the 3 year-old looks enough like the ID photo that says she's 22, there's a great problem afoot. What would you like, then? For every male to request of a female sexual partner legal proof of age? What, then, constitutes legal proof? Hello? Hello? Cripes, man, she had fraudulent identification that passed muster!

What more is needed, Adam? I mean, sure, the brain-scan seems a reasonable idea :bugeye: but on the one hand, we're speaking of an American crime where such search-and-seizure is not allowed, and furthermore, who can afford it?Personal insults aside, I would suggest fines and/or community serviceSure, I'll chalk that one up to the inadequacy of my words. So, to correct,

• If you're talking about throwing the girl in prison for using a fake ID and getting laid, I (would counter by asserting that) psychiatric counseling (for the girl) would do best (as opposed to prison). (And this is assuming that anyone needs to be "punished" at all for this.)I heard somewhere that around one-quarter of the entire world's prison inmates are in the USA. Quite silly. A very good indicator that the system there does not work. I suppose it is understandable why you have the attitudes you seem to, coming from that background.And we do, indeed, have various classes of prisons. Maximum, medium, minimum, and "federal". ("Federal" minimum-security prisons are where you run into the tennis courts and so forth; rather than sending the guy who mugged your grandma to that prison, they would send the guy who stole her life savings through embezzlement or fraud to that prison.)Permanent physical injury needs no further definition. Mental wouldbebest left for definition by more qualified people than me, psychologistsperhaps. But I would think anything resulting from a crime which alters a person's behaviour permanently, or such. For example agirl I know who was raped, she rarely goes out anywhere, never alone,and she barely trusts anyone. She also has an eating disorder which put her in hospital earlier this year. I would consider that permanent mental injury.The primary issue I'm going to put up is a guy named Dr James Grigson, also known in the US as "Doctor Death". A medical doctor and psychiatrist, Grigson has made a bit of a name for himself going from trial to trial to recommend the death penalty; mind you, his record is clear--that this patient is not psychiatrically dysfunctional and therefore should not be spared capital considerations is his standard answer. When you want to make sure an insanity plea doesn't go through, you call Doctor Death. To bring this back from capital punishment into the realm we're discussing, any attorney can find a psychiatrist who will debunk the psychological dysfunction of anyone, defendant or victim. I've heard psychiatrists testify that the rape survivor was lying because she couldn't remember the exact details of the incident. Of course, I've also heard a judge acquit a man of rape because the child didn't scream loudly enough. One would think, goes the reasoning, that somebody in the house would have heard, and stopped it.

Of people who have been raped ... and here I know many. Much of their recovery rests with their family and community. I still cringe when I think of a girl who cried on my shoulder, apologizing that she wasn't a virgin our first time together. All things considered, I put the weight of that wrongness not only on the father that raped her, but on the community that made virginity such a prize and obsession. Love should have been all that counted, right? Virginity? Of course, this is a post-Puritan malady that runs rampant in the United States, and I've long made the argument that our puritanistic obsession with the immorality of sex is problematic and causal.The United Nations Human Rights Commission would seem to disagree with you. As mentioned before, I recommend a prison system in accordance with their guidelines.Well, at least we're up to a room now. Like I said, I'll have to do some reading on the conventions of concrete boxes.As for Betty Lou Beets, did the photographs of her apparent abuse actually exist?Well, I'm going to withdraw the Beets point until I find those photos. I've seen them; they're horrible. But several of the websites devoted to saving her life closed up after her death. I've mailed a couple of organizations that worked on her behalf asking where the pictures have gone to. So, for the time being, that does us no real good, does it? On the other hand, when I do find them again, I'll make sure to resurrect the topic. Unless, of course, such considerations make no difference. I agree that evidence is a good thing. But, as you see from the articles pertaining to Mr Krone, evidence does not necessarily work. Actually, I should explain that briefly: in his second trial, evidence that was, for some reason, not introduced during his first trial was presented to the jury--the presence of blood not matching Mr Krone or the victim. Also, the bite-match is considered among the least-reliable matching processes and is only a factor when the prosecution has little or nothing else. Even in an American civil trial, where a "preponderance of evidence" is needed, the presence of the blood should have turned the trial to Mr Krone's favor. In a criminal trial, a jury is only supposed to convict if they believe "beyond any reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty.We are all dying, if you want to look at it that way. There is no difference in that regard if they are in prison or free. The state is not reducing their lifespan at all, merely removing the danger they represent from society.Given that you've repeatedly noted the cost of incarceration, given that you're seeking a standard that, in the United States, is considered abhorrent, it isn't so much a matter of being in prison or being free. Rather, it is about dignity and suffering. To draw out the dying process as I've put it is to spend large amounts of money keeping a person in discomfort who will never be free again.We have the opposite situation here. I believe most Australians wantless spent on criminals. I see a dichotomy 'twixt our positions here in the notion of money spent on prisons as compared to spent on criminals. It's a slight distinction. People in this country think that by incarcerating more people for longer times while providing less rehabilitation and education, we'll have a better result from our prisons. Nonetheless, it's getting more and more expensive.Well, I never understood that position. One, I'm an atheist. Two, I firmly believe it is not only our right but our duty to judge each other. If such was not the case, there would have been no reason whatsoever to fight against Hitler.The point actually was that, unless I am "God", I do not know the entirety of what has taken place. A jury that did not hear of physical abuse? A lawyer failing to introduce evidence?Judge not, and ye shall be crapped upon.I'll only make the point that it's usually the judgemental people doing the crapping.If you don't like brain-scans and truth drugs, I suggest he does some time. Preferably in minimum security, something like the Class One system I presented. Why? See point A well above. Ignorance alone can not be a valid defence unless proven, maybe not even then.Okay, well ... here's the thing ... I need to know from you what reasonable measure he can go to. Consider, please, the conditions: You are in a bar, drinking. A woman in the bar comes and orders a drink. Her ID is checked by the bartender, who nods, hands it back to her, and begins pouring your drink. At this point, if she is under the age of 21 in Oregon, she is not supposed to be inside this bar. Furthermore, just to get in, she has passed a doorman who is supposed to be checking ID's. Typically, even at 28, I get my ID checked three times in a bar where I'm not known. Even in the bars where they know me by name, they are required to check my ID at least once, as the law requires that I have that ID on me while drinking. (In the case that I "forgot" my ID, the bartender might get a warning from the police for not checking it, but I would face the criminal charge. In the case that I am a minor drinking without an ID and nobody checked me, booth the bar and I face charges.) Now ... you're an average working guy. Do you have a computer with you that you can log into the local licensing department, hack their system, and verify that the number on that ID is valid? To lead to a point from that paragraph that I haven't cited or addressed yet:I would prefer, however, that such a sentence might be voided if the girl made a full confession and it was proven that the guy was duped. That would be fairIt's just that at this point, I don't see how you can convict the guy. What can he reasonably do to validate the age?I don't see wheremy logic has failed.Is it logical to conclude, then, that what is represented in a court is what actually happened? Is it logical to conclude that all people convicted of a specific crime have, in fact, done the same thing? It's speculative and generalized.I don't suggest these possibilities for eye-for-an-eye, but for a reasonable and fair solution. I see it as fair that a society should be protected from those who deliberately harm it.Nobody's suggesting that we don't protect society from those who deliberately harm it. But, to the other, you're suggesting that of the more violent criminals who might get out of prison (e.g. Class Two), we should spend less money preparing them for their re-entry to society than we should the better-educated people who statistically fall under Class One.

As an interesting note: How many grades of criminal charge are there in Australia for actions resulting in the death of another person? Does the guy who steals a little girl from her home, ties her up in the trunk of his car, takes her to a remote field, has his way and then kills her the same as the mother who accidentally runs down someone with her car because she's trying to hush the kids and just doesn't see the poor guy in time?

And before you suggest that you've already covered that point with your prison classifications, I also want to point out that there are classifications of the charge

So while manslaughter might exist for the mother who runs the guy down accidentally, and thus she'll only spend 10 to 15 years in prison, and the murder charge for the guy who deliberately terminates another's life in malice, something else happens also. What if the state knows they have their man, and can prove that this person's actions resulted in the death of another, but cannot prove the charge of murder because motive turns out to be a fuzzy issue? How, then, when "pleading down" a suspect in order to at least get him or her off the streets for a while (and thus protect society) do you separate the wheat from the chaff? How, then, do you protect a Class Two prisoner when Class Two prisons have populations among them including Class One prisoners who pled out or was convicted of a lesser charge? What of the difference between defendants of similar crimes whereby one has more money, and therefore a better lawyer? Public defenders (the guaranteed representation of the poor in our Miranda Act) have notorious reputations. Sleeping during the trial, failing to introduce evidence ...I'm not crazyNeither are you making much of a bet if you're not willing to stake something of your own. It's always easy to risk someone else's, right? Especially when you might lose the bet?

I mean, I was only reflecting what you'd already established, so I hardly think I was beside the point to note that it was inappropriate.

What else that isn't yours would you like to wager?As for concrete boxes - again - I refer to the minimum agreed upon standards for imprisonment of criminals.Yes, and that's why we've upgraded to a room?

Meet or exceed?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

First off, that looks more like elaboration than revision, with the intent of clarification, which was requested. As explained, concrete box always referred to minimal legal condition. And no, not above that minimum. The people should not be required to pay for the luxuries of murderers. A state does not have the right to demand that from its people.

No, I don't recall where/when you "demand"ed someone explain something. It was about two weeks ago I think, if that helps.


What kind of an "excessive" example is this? Quite frankly, Adam, if the 3 year-old looks enough like the ID photo that says she's 22, there's a great problem afoot. What would you like, then? For every male to request of a female sexual partner legal proof of age?

Three years old, fifteen, whatever. The point is that ignorance can not be a valid legal excuse unless absolutely proven. Otherwise all thsoe date-rapist college jocks would simply walk into court and say "Sorry dude, she looked 25", and that would be the end of it.

What would I like? I would quite like a world in which people got to know their prospective sexual partners rather than shagging hither and thither on a whim. You may have noticed there are several terminal, contagious diseases roaming the globe, spread largely though sexual activity.

As for the brains-scan thing, I'm not sure I like it. On the one hand it could prove innocence in court, which is great. Ont the other, its introduction and acceptance sets a very dangerous precedent. If it became common, how long would it be until the customs agents at airports install more developed devices which can, to some degree, determine a person's emotional state based on heat in the face and such? After that, maybe we'd see them somewhere else. Maybe anyone who is upset some day might be hauled in by the police and interrogated.

We also have a Doctor Death in Australia, and I believe he went to prison after his first known assisted suicide. Not sure.


Of course, I've also heard a judge acquit a man of rape because the child didn't scream loudly enough.

That judge needs to be removed from office and possibly put in prison. He might even need his nuts kicked in. There have been cases like that here as well, and they tend to give me the idea that we need some standardised penalties for various acts.

As for the virginity thing, I was under the impression that some anthropologists thought it had something to do with selection for reproduction, evolution, all that. A man would be more attracted to a virgin because there would be less chance of his offspring through her having competition from her other offspring carrying someone else's genes. On the other hand, I know the crazy religious standards play a role, and many people have covered in other threads anything I might want to say about that.

I'm not sure if we have the "beyond any reasonable doubt" thing in Australian law. I would hope so. But the case I mentioned, with the women getting only two weeks for murder, would seem to suggest otherwise. Unless the legal system was railroaded for political reasons entirely...



Given that you've repeatedly noted the cost of incarceration, given that you're seeking a standard that, in the United States, is considered abhorrent, it isn't so much a matter of being in prison or being free. Rather, it is about dignity and suffering. To draw out the dying process as I've put it is to spend large amounts of money keeping a person in discomfort who will never be free again.

Permanent incarceration is abhorrent in the USA, is it? This coming from death-penalty land? :) You mention discomfort. Opposite of comfort. This girl I know who was raped, what duty has she to keep a rapist in comfort? The state can not ask her to keep such a man in comfort. It can, I think, ask her to foot some of the bill for keeping society safe from him, ie locking him up.

As for the money spent on the prison system and on criminals, I believe the figures they present here on the news and such are simply total money spent on prisons divided by number of prisoners.


I'll only make the point that it's usually the judgemental people doing the crapping.

I'd say it's also the judgemental people trying to stop it. Again, WW2.


Okay, well ... here's the thing ... I need to know from you what reasonable measure he can go to. Consider, please, the conditions: You are in a bar, drinking. A woman in the bar comes and orders a drink. Her ID is checked by the bartender, who nods, hands it back to her, and begins pouring your drink. At this point, if she is under the age of 21 in Oregon, she is not supposed to be inside this bar. Furthermore, just to get in, she has passed a doorman who is supposed to be checking ID's.

Oh, I don't know... Maybe some measure of restraint and control? Isn't that better than letting himself get into the situation he's in? It is not up to the bar staff to police fake IDs. It's up to the police. Although here a bar does have th right to toss out someone they believe is using a fake ID. This right is protected under the idea that the business has the right to refuse service to anyone they choose (a right which has been crapped on in courts since the growth-spurt of political correctness).

An odd thing about your laws requiring drinkers be checked for ID. When I was 19, I had quite a good time in the pubs and clubs around Los Angeles, and the only ID I carried was my legitimate Victorian driving permit.


It's just that at this point, I don't see how you can convict the guy. What can he reasonably do to validate the age?

Maybe nothing. Maybe that's why he should have spent some time gettign to know her first, rather than trusting his future to his base urges.


Is it logical to conclude, then, that what is represented in a court is what actually happened?

Absolutely. Our courts are supposedly based on this very idea. I know this is not strictly the case. But what would you base a court system on? What happened? Or what didn't happen? Or what might have happened in fairy-land? Seems to me the whole thing has to be based on what happened. Legal systems here work from that basis. The lawyers represent different stories, and try to support their claims with evidence. I know it's not perfect, but there are many checks and balances in place, and evidence is still an important requirement in most cases.


Nobody's suggesting that we don't protect society from those who deliberately harm it. But, to the other, you're suggesting that of the more violent criminals who might get out of prison (e.g. Class Two), we should spend less money preparing them for their re-entry to society than we should the better-educated people who statistically fall under Class One.

Absolutely. A state can not ask its people to pay more for those who have hurt them more.


As an interesting note: How many grades of criminal charge are there in Australia for actions resulting in the death of another person?

Not sure, I'll ask a law student friend later if I see gim.


What if the state knows they have their man, and can prove that this person's actions resulted in the death of another, but cannot prove the charge of murder because motive turns out to be a fuzzy issue?

To me, the only motive which might mitigate murder is self-defence, or defence of someone in imminent danger. If not defence, the person goes in the clink. Of course this does not cover entirely accidental deaths such as road accidents. But... You attack someone and it's not defence, and it results in injury, it's into the Class Two. If it results in death or permanent injury, it's into the Class Three. Defence is the only issue to be resolved. Why so strong and hard a standard? I don't like violence. Maybe such a law would, sooner or later, have people being civil to each other.


Neither are you making much of a bet if you're not willing to stake something of your own. It's always easy to risk someone else's, right? Especially when you might lose the bet?

It's an internet message board. I'm hardly likely to be so up-in-arms about anything that I'd consider sacrificing part of myself. So I see no reason to say I would.

First off, that looks more like elaboration than revision, with the intent of clarification, which was requestedElaboration that results in different conditions. I consider it a revision of conditions.The people should not be required to pay for the luxuries of murderers. A state does not have the right to demand that from its people. A few considerations:

•*Prison guards: It's rough enough for prison guards in the United States, at least. A few of those luxuries help maintain what peace there is in a prison.

•*Prisoners' necessities: Is a library in a prison a luxury? Such facilities have proven in the past to be vital to prisoners' appeals of their convictions. And some of these prisoners have won their appeals on the grounds that they are innocent.

• Medical necessities: Hygiene and health are difficult enough issues in prisons. Should we put the guards at risk by allowing infections to run rampant among prisoners? Prisoners do receive medical care, and some have argued that this is excessive.

• Communications: Prisoners, at present, are allowed to communicate with their families from time to time. There are even groups out there who remind us through Dear Abby and other such media outlets to write to prisoners and so forth. Personally, I think there's something wrong with you if you need a prison pen-pal, but maybe there's something I'm missing.

• Fundamental rights: One of the most macabre issues ever put before prisons in my time is freedom of religion--peyote and so forth. At present, if you're Christian, you're allowed to practice your religion in prison. The states even bring Christian preachers in to talk to the prisoners and to preach to them and convert them. The peyote cases, while seemingly laughable, raise an interesting question: Why should public money go toward the promotion of one religion? I suppose we could remove all the Bibles and so forth from the prisons; well enough. But the presence of religion in prisons has proven to be useful, both in the rehabilitation of those who will get out, and in contributing to whatever sense of peace exists among prisoners. This is helpful to the guards, to say the least, and does help lower the amount of violence going on in prisons.

Just a few points on luxuries.No, I don't recall where/when you "demand"ed someone explain something. It was about two weeks ago I think, if that helps. In other words ...? Three years old, fifteen, whatever. The point is that ignorance can not be a valid legal excuse unless absolutely proven. Otherwise all thsoe date-rapist college jocks would simply walk into court and say "Sorry dude, she looked 25", and that would be the end of it. Date-rapist college jocks? How many of those date-rapist college jocks are raping high school girls? Date rape is a crime because intercourse takes place without mutual consent. In case you'd forgotten, we're speaking of consent and deception about age.What would I like? I would quite like a world in which people got to know their prospective sexual partners rather than shagging hither and thither on a whim. You may have noticed there are several terminal, contagious diseases roaming the globe, spread largely though sexual activity. Has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Of course I would like to know my lovers better, but as long as we're being irrelevant, I might as well mention that it's six years later and my sexual partner is still surprising me with character quirks.As for the brains-scan thing, I'm not sure I like it. On the one hand it could prove innocence in court, which is great. Ont the other, its introduction and acceptance sets a very dangerous precedent. If it became common, how long would it be until the customs agents at airports install more developed devices which can, to some degree, determine a person's emotional state based on heat in the face and such? After that, maybe we'd see them somewhere else. Maybe anyone who is upset some day might be hauled in by the police and interrogated. It's a clear danger. But, insofar as contributing to acquittals is concerned, who can afford it? Is this another case of the rich having advantages in court that the poor do not?

But seriously--she's in the bar, which means her ID has passed muster once. She's carded by the bartender in your presence, which means her ID has passed muster twice. Now, what would you do, Adam, to establish her age?

Hell, we all celebrated a friend's birthday last year--her eighteenth. We all knew she was seventeen when she met a friend of ours. We all knew that she was having sex with a 29 year-old. Her biggest relief was not having to hide her age anymore. But then again, I've seen her drink in my presence and she can toke most people I know under the table. The big joke was that "he's only 23". Apparently that made a difference to the girl's parents :bugeye:, but that conversation consistently led to jaws dropping when people asked why and, "(cough) ... She's only 17, dude." And, yes, if the parents so chose, even believing he was 23, they could have prosecuted him for having sex with a minor, despite the age of consent. They chose not to. And, when, after her 18th birthday, she spilled it to her folks, they still chose not to prosecute. Strangely, they're the most stable couple I know.

The point of that is that most people I knew assumed her to be 20 or 21. With a fake ID, at 17, she could have passed as legal. A couple of restaurants I know of even served her alcohol without asking for ID.

Point being that in the case of the guy who got sent up for it ... heck, what is he supposed to do? She's showing ID and passing right there in front of him. What reason does he have to doubt her age?We also have a Doctor Death in Australia, and I believe he went to prison after his first known assisted suicide. Not sure. Actually, I'm not referring to Dr Kevorkian. This guy was a psychiatrist. If you're a prosecutor facing a tight insanity plea, you call him in. He was certified as a doctor in most states, and when you call him in, he would interview the defendant once, and then read what was pretty much a canned diagnosis to the jury stating that he found the defendant to be sane and cognizant. His job was to help secure the death penalty at any cost. Even lying. I think he's fallen out of practice because he's too well-known for what he does. Thank CNN for that, I suppose. And USA Today.That judge needs to be removed from office and possibly put in prison.Actually, the one who needs to go to prison is a Wisconsin judge who, in 1985, acquitted a man of raping a child because the 3 year-old apparently "acted promiscuously". But, sitting and listening to the "someone would have heard it" ruling ... I'd say that day plays a vital role in my distrust of American justice.As for the virginity thing, The anthropology sounds reasonable, at least. In the modern day, though, I directly attribute the crazy religious standards. Catholic school, at least, demonstrated that clearly for me. I think it was in the Hate/Oppose/Dislike Christianity thread that I noted that Catholic school destroyed a number of my standards of human sanctity. Sexuality took a severe beating there.I'm not sure if we have the "beyond any reasonable doubt" thing in Australian law.On the one hand, I highly recommend it. To the other, a survey of the last twenty years of American judicial proceedings will show a decline in that standard. In the drug war, it's set aside entirely.

But, for instance, as furious as people were at the OJ Simpson ruling in this country, I agree with it. I had just dropped out of college and wasn't working while that was going on, so of course I spent a ridiculous amount of time watching the trial. And I would have acquitted too, based on a standard of "beyond any reasonable doubt". Merely three points: preservatives in the blood, poor evidence collection (both blood evidence and a possible murder weapon--the infamous envelope contained a knife that the police utterly overlooked), and a dish of ice cream that, by comparing the officers' notes to the crime scene itself indicated that the murder took place outside the necessary time-frame for Simpson's guilt. On the ice cream alone I would have acquitted; it created a reasonable doubt in my mind.Permanent incarceration is abhorrent in the USA, is it? This coming from death-penalty land? Depends on what it's for. Life sentences for drug possession? Come on.The state can not ask her to keep such a man in comfort.In our (American) case, "cruel and unusual punishment" is strictly forbidden by the Constitution. That degree of cruelty and unorthodoxy is constantly under review.As for the money spent on the prison system and on criminals, I believe the figures they present here on the news and such are simply total money spent on prisons divided by number of prisoners. But how is it spent? Let's say you spend a million dollars a year on a prison. How do you spend the money? Hire nine guards, pay them $100,000 each and spend the remaining portion on food for the prisoners? Hire five guards, pay them $50,000 each, spend a few hundred-thousand on bolstering the guards' security, and the remainder on the prisoners?I'd say it's also the judgemental people trying to stop it. Again, WW2. Well, everybody's judgemental. But, to borrow a Christian term, those who trespass against us are usually the more judgemental. I, for instance, am quite judgemental. But I'm also going to trust each human being I meet until they give me reason to enact judgement. This does, in fact, get me into trouble every now and then. But it also does some good, as well. I can think of two relatively recent occasions where my refusal to judge someone might actually have prevented a crime. In one case, some french fries and an hour out of my day is all that was required--I can't describe it any better except to say at least the woman was safe while I was dealing with the situation. In the other, bus fare, a change of clothes, and a couple of tokes to calm down a crackhead who, thinking he was being chased by the police, jumped off a bridge to escape a passing ambulance. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. But such situations require delicacy. However, before I digress any further, I'll just note that it's the people I see daily who routinely push that level of trust and who routinely demand judgement of others.Oh, I don't know... Maybe some measure of restraint and control? Isn't that better than letting himself get into the situation he's in? It is not up to the bar staff to police fake IDs. It's up to the police. Although here a bar does have th right to toss out someone they believe is using a fake ID. This right is protected under the idea that the business has the right to refuse service to anyone they choose (a right which has been crapped on in courts since the growth-spurt of political correctness). It is, in fact, the bar's responsibility, both in the state I'm in now and the state I lived in when I knew this guy. It used to be a simple question: Do they look 21? As it became more and more problematic, that number went up. 26, 28, 30 ... nowadays, they check every ID through the door. If ignorance is not bliss, then the bartender and the doorman at least should have suffered legal consequences. They did not. When I was 19, I had quite a good time in the pubs and clubs around Los Angeles, and the only ID I carried was my legitimate Victorian driving permit. There's been a long debate about liquor regulation in this country. In California, it was common to allow minors into clubs for concerts. If you were of age, you received an asymmetrical, special stamp on your hand that indicated you were cleared for drinking. You were also obliged to show ID when asked, even if you already had the stamp. They do it in Oregon, too. Up here in Washington, well ... we treat minors poorly and it shows.Maybe nothing. Maybe that's why he should have spent some time gettign to know her first, rather than trusting his future to his base urges. Yes, and that's a great reason to throw someone in prison ...?Absolutely. Our courts are supposedly based on this very idea. I know this is not strictly the case. But what would you base a court system on? What happened? Or what didn't happen?There was a shooting once outside my workplace. At the time, all anyone knew is that a cabbie shot a fare for some reason. He was black. He was Middle-Eastern. He was white. He was a redhead. He was Hispanic. He was tall. He was short. He had a beard. He was clean-shaven. What happened?

Or a shooting at a boatyard in Seattle. For hours the police described their suspect variously. While asking the public to be cautious of a black man wearing these clothes and matching this physical description, the cops on the street were shaking down everybody.

I got in a fight once at school. A girl slapped me for no reason, pushed me back into a bunsen burner, and then threw a right hook. I fell back over a stool, whereupon she tried to kick me. Two people who weren't in the room told the principal of the school that I had hit her.

Not unless you have it on videotape do you get to see what really happened. Somewhere around here, someone linked out to a police-beating of an Hispanic man in Texas. I remember when the story broke and he was described initially as being violent and resisting. I watched four minutes of the video today. Yeah, violent. He tried to walk away. I haven't watched the other 20 minutes of it, but by the time 3 cops were holding him down and causing him pain, I would cheer any violence he could possibly visit upon them. Really, how incompetent were these cops that they couldn't cuff him in under four minutes?

The police in Seattle have taken a good deal of heat lately. The WTO debacle (Nov. 1999) should be enough to explain that. They clamped down in response to violence in the protests. Um ... okay, they clamped down on the peaceful protesters after standing aside while masked vandals did thousands of dollars worth of damage and other protesters were left trying to stop them. The vandals disappeared, the protest returned to its focus, and then the police let the remaining protesters have it. Beyond that is the shooting of a black motorist. Yes, we understand that he was fleeing the cops. The officers' justification for shooting the guy was that he was assaulting another cop, who was "being dragged helplessly alongside the car". Okay ... as the guy decided to flee, that officer grabbed onto the car and chose not to let go. In another case, police shot a shoplifter with a kitchen knife. The psychiatrically-disabled man apparently lunged at the officer who shot him, apparently placing the officer in immediate danger. The videotape shows it differently. The guy with the knife turned around suddenly, and took a step. It is unclear whether that step was a matter of balance or otherwise. However, what is clear is that, had the man charged the officer, the officer would have had between three and four seconds before impact, and he was well-covered by other officers who did not interpret his actions dangerously enough to shoot.

What we hear in court is a reconstruction of what happened. It's pretty close, but some vital details are always missing or distorted. I'm not pointing out a guilt/innocence problem. But, to revisit Betty Lou Beets from a different aspect--she was tried for a capital crime because she apparently killed her husband for insurance money. This cold-blooded act allowed the state to escalate the charge to a captial crime. It was on the written advice of her lawyer that she filed the insurance claim. A minor detail, no? All I'm after here is that her crime may not have fit the state standard for a capital crime. What actually happened may not have been what the jury convicted her of. Thus, to revisit your paragraph, and a part not yet cited--I know it's not perfect, but there are many checks and balances in place, and evidence is still an important requirement in most cases. To me that makes all the difference in the world. Take a friend of mine as an example. He was arrested for reckless driving. It should be pointed out that he's black, and nobody ever asks, "Do you know why I stopped you, sir?" In fact, they don't ask for his license and registration. The first words he heard that night were, "Please step out of the car, you're under arrest." Well, when all was sorted out and the situation explained, an offense warranting prison time was reduced to a $90 ticket. The officer's notes, which would have been presented at the trial, would have inaccurately described the situation.

We must necessarily know what we're sentencing people for. And that is not always clear.

No, it's not perfect. But if we're going to put someone away for life, we better be damn sure of everything we're sentencing that person for.Absolutely. A state can not ask its people to pay more for those who have hurt them more. And I have to disagree. Do the Class Two criminals get out or stay in for life? I invite you to examine the criteria pertaining to the crimes themselves in your classification scheme. I'm going to venture that a guy who steals his money through embezzlement or credit-card fraud needs less education in prison than the guy who steals his money from a liquor store with a gun. It's just a sneaking suspicion here. I can't imagine what makes me think that ;) To me, the only motive which might mitigate murder is self-defence, or defence of someone in imminent danger. If not defence, the person goes in the clink. Of course this does not cover entirely accidental deaths such as road accidents. But... You attack someone and it's not defence, and it results in injury, it's into the Class Two. If it results in death or permanent injury, it's into the Class Three. Defence is the only issue to be resolved. Why so strong and hard a standard? I don't like violence. Maybe such a law would, sooner or later, have people being civil to each other. For instance, the difference between Murder 1 and Murder 2 is generally the nature of the crime. If you come home and find your wife sleeping with your best friend and shoot him, we call that a crime of passion, and the court understands to a certain degree that you're not a bad person per se, but that you need some help with how you react to things, and recognizes your right to do at least something in defense of the sanctity of your marriage. The problem is that you did too much. If you find your best friend in bed with your wife, and in the course of ejecting him from the house, he falls down the stairs, hits his head, and dies, the court might be inclined to look at it even less severely. You didn't intend to kill him, you just weren't careful enough in your rage. You might avoid a murder charge altogether, and face manslaughter instead. But if you suspect your wife is having an affair with your best friend, and plot to kill one or both of them, and carry out the crime while not in the heat of passion--e.g. immediate and confusing rage; if you've had time to cool off--to kill one of them would result in Murder 1.

Thus you might actually commit Murder 1, what might happen is that the state can prove you killed someone, and prove it definitively, but be unable to demonstrate that you plotted coldly to cause another person's death. Thus you might possibly be able to get away with Murder 2, serve 25 to life, and be paroled after 12 to 17. Thus, your Class Three criminal will be convicted of a lesser crime because the alternative is losing the prosecution and watching the suspect go free. In fact, if your lawyer is good enough, he might be able to plead you down to manslaughter and get you out 8-10 years, and you'd be out in 5 to 7. (I don't get how that particular part of serving time works. But yeah, to keep Shepherd's killer from being paroled at some point required a special agreement whereby the court sentenced McKinney to two life sentences, and still had to include a specific "no parole" clause.)It's an internet message board. I'm hardly likely to be so up-in-arms about anything that I'd consider sacrificing part of myself. So I see no reason to say I would.Yeah, I'm just hounding you on that point because it was there, and because I was so amused at the appearance of your missing that specific point. The propriety and impropriety in question, to which you responded, was a response to your own standard. That's the only reason I dare rib you on that one.

Something interesting though that I'm noticing. Perhaps it's the difference between having Her Majesty at the top of the chain and having Dubya (or any president) at the top of the chain. By theory, at least, We, the People, are the government. I know it doesn't look like that these days, but technically, the state asks nothing of us. We ask of it. At least, in theory. And if we ever throw that idea out entirely, the US is over.

What is really interesting about the Constitution itself and the Bill of Rights is how much of that foundation is directly in reaction to His Majesty, King George III of England--that is, the same office as the proper (and recently reaffirmed, if I recall) head of your state. Ironic, to say the least. But yes, the "trilateral commission" of Congress, Executive, Judiciary is a direct strike at the authority of the Crown; relations between the states are a reaction to colonialism; the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights are in response to the Crown's usurpations of the people.

It might be that our regard for the state is part of what we're disagreeing on. When I see words about what the state asks of the people ... it doesn't quite ring right to me.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I HOPE i missread that (my computer is playing tricks with me and its making it hard to read stuff)

Did someone just say that date rape was OK. If i read it right i can't belive the crulty of you. BOTH sides have a right to stop at ANYTIME.

Asguard

I haven't even seen that. It might be part of the big issue we're having about statutory rape, consent, age, and deception.

Where did you think you saw that? Perhaps it's a contextual thing. But now I'm curious ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Methinks we need to define 'date rape'.

I never quite understood the reason for the distinction anyways....

Adam: One small point: I don't think one should have to worry about a rape charge simply for not getting to know your partner better.

That said, I'll leave you two to it. Interesting debate.

I never quite understood the reason for the distinction anyways....

rape1 Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.



date rape

n : rape in which the rapist is known to the victim (as when they are on a date together)


So, in date rape - you know the person the person and you dont think you have anything to worry about - until you say NO. I had that experience before and it is different. He was a friend of mine so for some odd reason I thought it was okay. No charges, nothing was done about it - except I never spoke to him again. I think it happens alot more than documented.

Groove on

Xev

An interesting point. If I ever figure how to make a topic out of that, I will.

But as to the distinction, I think it's a sociological distinction and not a legal distinction. The legal distinction might come in the sense that we separate, say, murders. Is there really a distinction between a "crime of passion" (e.g. Murder 2) and a deliberate, planned, cold-blooded killing (e.g. Murder 1)?

Date rape seems to be a line drawn by psychologists and sociologists; it can include forced sodomy during consensual sex, or non-consensual sexual intercourse (among other things). It comes as a counterpoint to the notion that a young man didn't commit rape because he didn't stalk the woman, break and enter her home, and force himself upon her at threat of her life. It is a condition whereby the means of access is available through acquaintance.

But date rape is non-consensual sexual acts forced on a person by someone of their acquaintance, regardless of what other license they have.

I mean, really, if we want to get right down to the bare-bones of it, I've been "raped" several times. Seriously--if a guy tells a woman no, all she has to do is unzip his fly and put his c--k in her mouth. Now, were I to arouse a woman through those means after she has declined sexual contact, it would be rape. To the other, what is my alternative? If I physically attack the woman in defense of my, uh, sanctity ... I'll probably go to jail for that. Yes, it's a ridiculous counterpoint but, technically, under the law, it's correct.

Which brings a question to mind which definitely requires its own topic: What is the difference? In other words ... I could care less that women have continued to physically press for intercourse after I've told them no. One of the long prejudices I've had to deal with since witnessing the chaos of my high school years is the presumption that a woman has to be convinced to have sex, that she must be cajoled, begged, bargained, or even prostituted. What this reflects is the leering, uncouth nature of most males, and the fact that, after seeing the damage it causes, I can't stand it. Of course I've also been dumped before for "going too slow". And when you wake up and your best friend is f--king your girlfriend on the floor ten feet away from you, well, so much for that silly prejudice that women don't like sex and don't want to be admired for their beauty or sensuality or sex appeal. What's so bad about it? Maybe a double-standard. After all, if I get laid in high school, it's studly and admirable. If a girl gets laid--and I don't know that this still holds true ten years later--she's a whore. So go the myths.

Two cents or so on date rape ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

You are soo right in everything you just said.

Nearly every woman I know (and I'm 16) would definetly be frightened and would take some kind of action if a male teacher hit on them. The reverse is a joke. We had student teachers in a while ago and a 19 year old woman in our class as a student teacher would be constantly touching me, offering me rides home.....

Now whether or not she's actually hitting on me or just being friendly with someone relatively close to her age is up in the air. But it is a definte that it could be taken as sexual. And I'm pretty sure a male teacher could get in real trouble for doing such a thing to a girl. But I wouldn't even think of mentioning it to someone that would get our student teacher in trouble.

As for whether or not things ahve changed in ten years? Yes and no. No in that the majority of girls still are not completely open sexually and feel that isn't morally right or 'normal'. Yes in that some women are very open with their sexuallity now.

Tyler
You have actually just hit on the reason there are not alot of guys in teaching (especially primary school age). My mother is doing a bachola of teaching and i asked her about it. She said that if a female teacher picks a kid up who has been crying (because they fell over or something) and gives them a hug the teacher is just being motherly, if a MALE teacher dose it they are a pedifile.


As rape i think i must have miss read YOUR post tiassa and your quotes (sorry as i said my computer was playing tricks)

Date rape is WRONG. Is not an acxeptable practise for male OR female. If see dumpted you for going to slow she wasn't worth it anyway

This is from vic legle aid
http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/main1.cfm?categoryid=3&topicid=19&infopageid=91


The law is the same for relationships between people of the same sex and relationships between people of opposite sex.

There are age limits on when you are allowed to have sex. If you are:

Under 10
No one is allowed to have sex with you (even if you agree).

Between 10 and 16
A person is not allowed to have sex with you if they are more than two years older than you (even if you agree).

Exceptions to this are if:

you are married to the person
the person had reason to believe that you were 16 or older, or
the person had reason to believe that he or she was married to you.
Aged 16 or 17
A person is not allowed to have sex with you if you are under their care, supervision or authority, for example, a teacher, youth worker or foster carer (even if you agree).

Exceptions to this are if the person had reason to believe that:

you are 18 or older, or
you were married to the person.
Subject to the age limits, the law says that two people are not allowed to have sex unless they both agree. If you do not agree and someone threatens or touches you sexually they are breaking the law. Get advice from Victoria Legal Aid, or contact the Centre Against Sexual Assault. Click on the "How to Get Help" resource link at the right hand side of this page for details


It clearly states that the type of relatioship or your gender have no relivance

There was another thread that we were talking about this but i can't rember where

Guess it's time for me to stick my two-cents back into a discussion that
is roaming far afield. After dancing around the topic of prison rape and
expressing various sentiments and supposed 'solutions' before going
afield, I find it interesting that no one hasn't touched on an important,
at least to me, aspect of prison rape: It often is a racially motivated
power play!

'Don't commit the crime' if you're White and don't belong to a group like
The Arian Brotherhood, the Hell's Angles or other similar groups that will
protect you, otherwise your ass is fair game for Blacks and Latinos! And
that's the way it is!

I can just hear most of you now: "The old coot has finally gone bonkers!
We knew it was just a matter of time." All I can say is that all of you, except
for maybe *stRgrL*, haven't the faintest idea what the real world is like
when it comes to prisons. Goofyfish does his 'remote intellectual' bit,
tiassa does his 'pity the poor criminal' bit, Adam does a 'macho' bit (Xev
too, for that matter), ImaHamster2 is off on his 'technology can solve the
problem' bit, and Counterbalance and I attempt to add a bit of levity to an
otherwise depressing discussion.

Okay, that's it; I've belched ... Back to doing my taxes.

Y'all take care ;)

Originally posted by Chagur
Goofyfish does his 'remote intellectual' bit...Remote Intellectual. I like the way that rolls out, Chag :D

Peace.

Before I finish writing this someone is likely to “react” to Chagur’s last post. (No Kidding?!) I think I’ll react too because Chagur has brought up something important. (he does do that sometimes :rolleyes: ) There are some “real world” aspects that many living outside the prison environment can’t know, or know well. Racial hierarchies play a part in what goes down. And delving into that can take us, like...reeeeeally far afield. Further than we’d have to go in all likelihood--or would if we‘re not really that interested in coming up with solutions. (Adam, you better put that frying pan down, son... :bugeye: ) Sooo, why not enlighten us further, Chagur? You’re at least somewhat “in the know” on this one and can help us understand what you think could make a difference. (I did use the word “could.” Understood that some are more cynical than others.)

That said, and contrary to what some might believe, I’m not prepared to dismiss all that’s been contributed here. A bit of levity is good, yeah. Attitude is one thing and content another. The hamster, for example, has not asserted that technology is the only answer, but offers a glimpse of how technology can assist in reducing the occurrence of some in-prison crimes. In a nutshell, Tiassa has spoken for the “underdog,” and Adam for the “upright citizen.” (who deserves what kind of treatment or support while incarcerated and why?) Others have shared what they considered relevant. Chagur would now have us all know that we’re off track on this, and so we wait (breathlessly) for more information.

OR, you can ignore all of the above, and all can go ahead and pile on Chagur (as he fully expects you to ) and deprive ME of that fine dragon dinner I’ve been yearning after for many a millennia now.

“Justice” is a relative concept after all. :rolleyes:

::sigh::

Counterbalance

Why would we flame him? It would be unsporting, given his age. :D

Besides, he is almost as amusing as taunting Sir Loone, or bickering with Tony1. *Sniffle* I miss Tony.

*Bopples off to open beer bottles with her teeth*

Now, as for date rape, I really don't see a distinction. It seems that the rapist in that situation simply has a different way of 'hunting'. I see no reason to catagorize rapists.

Tyler: I agree. Women are conditioned (perhaps a bit of this is natural) to regard sexual overtures as...well....slightly frightening or 'to be avoided'. Add to that the fact that, on average, men have a bit more power in academia, and the fact that men are waaaaay less likely to refuse an overture........and you have a splendid mess.

Well, got my tax reports off in the mail at the local post office ... No need
to make a thirty seven mile run (drive, at my age) to the Main Post Office
to get it date stamped the 15th. Maybe I'm improving, been a procrastinator
since I was a kid.

Speaking about kids, I imagine I've been dealing with the problem of prison
rape since some of you were a gleam in your dad's eye. Yes, I have a few
ideas that work, but they require manpower and they're relatively costly
now days. They weren't back when I started doing my bit, but that's a
different story. And no, it has nothing to do with putting salt-peter in the
inmate's food.

'Unsporting, given his age', Xev? You don't know what 'sporting' is until
you've had to deal with eight-hundred or so pissed off inmates, my dear.

Take care, all ;)

All I can say is that all of you, except
for maybe *stRgrL*, hasn't the faintest idea what the real world is like when it comes to prisons

Awww, Chag - you shouldnt have:D Im going to take that as a compliment and run with it!!!!


Groove on

It was meant as such.

Take care ;)