View Full Version : Angola Prison Rodeo, inhuman or not?
Syzygys
10-30-08, 11:21 AM
I am throwing this up for discussion. I can argue both ways....
I saw a very interesting piece on the sportchannel about a prison in Luisiana where the warden organizes biannual rodeo for the inmates. Singing up is completely voluntary and more inmates sign up than who can actually participate.
The rodeo is very dangerous, the prisoners get hurt a lot. But, 80% of them NEVER get visitores and most of them are lifers with no parole options. So when you are in jail for life, getting gored by a bull seems a lot of fun.
The warden says that it has a very positive effect on the inmates and there is something for them to look forward, also they only get to participate if they behave. One interviewed inmate had 4 lifesentences AND 200 years, I guess it is hard to control a person or try to make his life worthwhile...
More info:
http://www.angolarodeo.com/
http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/10/20/its-october-which-means-its-rodeo-time-at-angola-prison/
You can see the report on HBO's Real Sports program...
Baron Max
10-30-08, 11:50 AM
I have one question; Do the taxpayers pay for all this fun for the prisoners?
Baron Max
Syzygys
10-30-08, 12:00 PM
I don't remember but there are tickets for sale, so I assume not....
By the way the question wasn't the economic side of the story, but the humanity of it. One guy's family jewels got dmagaed, the warden's answer: "he doesn't need it here anyway."
Baron Max
10-30-08, 12:12 PM
By the way the question wasn't the economic side of the story, but the humanity of it.
Well, if that's the case, then the prisoners volunteered for the dangerous fun. So, ...what the hell? There are many rodeo cowboys who do the same things for a living. If it's inhumane for prisoners to volunteer for it, are we doing to stop the rodeo cowboys, too?
Maybe we should just force everyone to sit all day and watch tv, so they can't get hurt or harmed in any way. Walking across a street is dangerous, so ....sit in front of the tv all day is better, isn't it?
Baron Max
cosmictraveler
10-30-08, 12:21 PM
I always thought that going to prison was meant to be where you don't have fun or enjoyment but are there to do hard time for crimes you have commited against others. Prisoners should only be given time to excercise at specfic times of the day then back into their cells for the remainder of time. Giving prisoners any type of recreation only shows who is running the prison system.
Baron Max
10-30-08, 12:29 PM
I always thought that going to prison was meant to be where you don't have fun or enjoyment but are there to do hard time for crimes you have commited against others.
Nope, that was back in the days before the bleeding heart liberals took over and made the luxurious changes to prisons. Now, some of the prisons are better than many of the public schools in the nation ...and cost far more to operate, too. Nice, huh?
Baron Max
Syzygys
10-30-08, 02:11 PM
Well, if that's the case, then the prisoners volunteered for the dangerous fun. So, ...what the hell? There are many rodeo cowboys who do the same things for a living.
True, but there is a counterargument against it: When being in prison for decades is so deprivative to the human spirit that even being gored by a bull looks like fun, than something is wrong...
cosmictraveler
10-30-08, 02:50 PM
True, but there is a counterargument against it: When being in prison for decades is so deprivative to the human spirit that even being gored by a bull looks like fun, than something is wrong...
But that's the idea behind prisons, to NOT want to be behind bars and become depraved.
Baron Max
10-30-08, 07:17 PM
True, but there is a counterargument against it: When being in prison for decades is so deprivative to the human spirit that even being gored by a bull looks like fun, than something is wrong...
I don't know why you say that. It was his choice to take the chance of going to prison when he committed the crime(s).
And where do you get the idea that prison should be some kind of social therapy or something? It's prison, it's punishment for doing something wrong against society's rules.
The prisoner had a choice before he went to prison, now he has a choice to take a chance of getting gored by a bull. Big deal. We all make choices in life; some are good choices, some are bad. Don't you think that we should all be responsible for our own choices?
Baron Max
visceral_instinct
10-30-08, 07:20 PM
They don't have to if they don't want to. End of story.
Though I think they should get medical attention for genital injuries.
MetaKron
10-30-08, 07:28 PM
They don't have to if they don't want to. End of story.
Though I think they should get medical attention for genital injuries.
I seriously doubt that the inmate was denied medical attention.
Syzygys
10-30-08, 10:00 PM
I don't know why you say that. It was his choice to take the chance of going to prison when he committed the crime(s).
Not everybody is thinking of getting caught...
Treating people with social disorders by sending them to prison makes no more sense than sending people with mental disorders to asylums.
Only people who are truly a danger to themselves and others should be incarcerated.
The others should be rehabilitated and allowed to make restitution if they injured others.
I see no reason to foot the bill for your petty revenge and then at the end of it have a person more dangerous coming out then he was going in.
Baron Max
10-31-08, 08:34 AM
The others should be rehabilitated and allowed to make restitution if they injured others.
But before society makes that determination, don't you thing it would be wise to actually have a WORKABLE method of rehabilitation? Right now, we don't ...there is no method of rehab that's been shown to work. So ...what now?
Your liberal attitude is admirable, but it seems that it's only words-without-substance.
Only people who are truly a danger to themselves and others should be incarcerated.
Well, damn, ....you were able to dream up rehab for the others, why not just go ahead and dream up a rehab for these guys, too? Hell, you're on a dream-roll, just continue the dream in the same vein. Voila'
Baron Max
Baron Max
to actually have a WORKABLE method of rehabilitation?
There are workable methods for large numbers of the people we currently make no effort towards. There would also be more workable methods if we were actively seeking such. Rehab programs that have been tested always come out roses with less cost in the long run and less recidivism.
Your liberal attitude is deplorable. I'm tired of paying so you can socialize the prison system and pay perfectly healthy people to sit on their ass.
Baron Max
11-02-08, 08:11 AM
There are workable methods for large numbers of the people we currently make no effort towards.
Okay, name them, provide scientific studies and links, show where and how and who those "workable" rehad methods have worked.
Rehab programs that have been tested always come out roses with less cost in the long run and less recidivism.
Give some scientific study info ...otherwise it's all just words. And, by the way, don't link me to articles where psycho-babblists just throw out more pipe-dream words.
Baron Max
Why is someone with four life sentences + 200 years allowed to do anything AT ALL ? He should be rotting in some damp, dark and rat infested dungeon.
Baron Max
11-02-08, 08:27 AM
Why is someone with four life sentences + 200 years allowed to do anything AT ALL? He should be rotting in some damp, dark and rat infested dungeon.
No, he should have been executed long, long ago! Keeping him in a cell is just a major waste of taxpayer money.
Baron Max
No, he should have been executed long, long ago! Keeping him in a cell is just a major waste of taxpayer money.
Baron Max
I agree it's a waste of money, but I do have a problem with capital punishment.
Although.. I might be willing to set aside my objections in special cases...
Baron Max
11-02-08, 09:01 AM
I agree it's a waste of money, but I do have a problem with capital punishment. Although.. I might be willing to set aside my objections in special cases...
Well, the more cases you object to is just that much more money the taxpayer will have to hand out.
And I have to ask you this: Why do you want people like that? What good are those people to any society? Do you think any society on Earth would accept such people with open, loving arms?
Baron Max
Well, the more cases you object to is just that much more money the taxpayer will have to hand out.
And I have to ask you this: Why do you want people like that? What good are those people to any society? Do you think any society on Earth would accept such people with open, loving arms?
Baron Max
I don't want these people at all. I am objecting to capital punishment because of the possibility of innocent people being executed.
Baron Max
11-02-08, 09:25 AM
I am objecting to capital punishment because of the possibility of innocent people being executed.
Do you object in the same way allowing people to drive cars on the streets and roadways? You see, there are far, far more innocent people killed in car accidents than are executed for crimes.
There are going to be mistakes, just like in allowing people to drive cars. But the innocent deaths in car accidents aren't enough to outlaw driving. The same odds should be acceptable in the death penalty cases. Otherwise, you're punishing all of the taxpayers for all of the crimes committed ...you're forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill for the prisons. and it's a lot of money!
Baron Max
Do you object in the same way allowing people to drive cars on the streets and roadways? You see, there are far, far more innocent people killed in car accidents than are executed for crimes.
There are going to be mistakes, just like in allowing people to drive cars. But the innocent deaths in car accidents aren't enough to outlaw driving. The same odds should be acceptable in the death penalty cases. Otherwise, you're punishing all of the taxpayers for all of the crimes committed ...you're forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill for the prisons. and it's a lot of money!
Baron Max
Nonsense analogy.
Baron Max
11-02-08, 09:31 AM
Nonsense analogy.
So all that means is that you can accept accidental deaths in car accidents, but you can't accept accidental deaths in death penalty cases? ..even tho' there are tens of thousands more car accidental deaths?
Baron Max
Dr Lou Natic
11-02-08, 10:00 AM
I always thought that going to prison was meant to be where you don't have fun or enjoyment but are there to do hard time for crimes you have commited against others. Prisoners should only be given time to excercise at specfic times of the day then back into their cells for the remainder of time. Giving prisoners any type of recreation only shows who is running the prison system.
I disagree, prison should be about keeping convicts away from decent society, not punishing them.
It's not their fault they can't control their urges (or that they have bad urges in the first place), it's just unlucky, they're just an unfortunate product of nature. They didn't design themselves from scratch, they were born as a blue print and arranged by their life experience, the result turned out to a fucked up person who desires to do bad things, and is inclined to make the bad decision of fullfilling those desires.
I mean, what an unlucky motherfucker, compared to faggot ass Tony Romo who was born and raised to be a multi-millionaire quarterback in the nfl with perfect teeth and a good heart and a good work ethic and solid morals and a popstar girlfriend who gargles his nuts every morning, etc.
All that fell into place for him because of the person he was born and raised to be.
The exact same thing landed some other poor motherfucker in a cage for the entirety of the one life he has on this god forsaken planet. You want to deprave him of hurting himself on a bull? I'd rather inject Tony Romo with AIDs.
So all that means is that you can accept accidental deaths in car accidents, but you can't accept accidental deaths in death penalty cases? ..even tho' there are tens of thousands more car accidental deaths?
Baron Max
Cars are not designed to kill. And people accept this risk in engaging in a non-criminal activity.
Baron Max
11-02-08, 01:03 PM
I disagree, prison should be about keeping convicts away from decent society, not punishing them.
And in so doing, you're punishing society by forcing them to pay for the upkeep of the prisons, paying for guards, food, clothing, etc.
By the way, I'm a firm believer in the fact that prisons are, in fact, punishment for crimes committed against society.
It's not their fault they can't control their urges (or that they have bad urges in the first place), it's just unlucky, they're just an unfortunate product of nature.
Then why doesn't society just get rid of them ...like we do wild, vicous and/or rabid dogs that can't control their urges? We're being so mamby-pamby about crime and punishment that we're beginning to make crime the highest paid profession in the nation! In a few years, if Obama gets elected, we might even do away with prisons and just let the criminals run free anywhere they want, taking anything they want.
Baron Max
Baron Max
11-02-08, 01:06 PM
Cars are not designed to kill.
Well, for a machine that's not designed to kill, it sure as hell is doing a damned good job of it! In fact, as you're well aware, cars kill tens of thousands more innocent people than guns probably ever did ...perhaps in all of history, including wars!
Yet you accept that risk with cars, but you can't accept the minimal risk of guns????? :D
Baron Max
Well, for a machine that's not designed to kill, it sure as hell is doing a damned good job of it! In fact, as you're well aware, cars kill tens of thousands more innocent people than guns probably ever did ...perhaps in all of history, including wars!
Yet you accept that risk with cars, but you can't accept the minimal risk of guns????? :D
Baron Max
lol Excuse me, but I'm not even replying to that.. :rolleyes:
Baron Max
11-02-08, 06:45 PM
lol Excuse me, but I'm not even replying to that..
But you just did, didn't you. What you probably meant to say is that you have no good answer for the points in my post, so you make silly, childish excuses for not responding to it.
Baron Max
Okay, name them, provide scientific studies and links, show where and how and who those "workable" rehad methods have worked.
"the recidivism rate is, on average, 10 percentage points lower for the treatment group than for the control group"
Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy,Practice, and Prospectsby Francis T. Cullen and Paul Gendreau
http://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_3/03d.pdf
At $220,000 for an average 10 year sentence, that is $2,200,000 saved for 10 out of every 100 people over 10 years that don't go back to prison.
There are 2,300,000 people in jail so that's roughly $5,060,000,000 a year or 10% of the annual prison budget of $50,000,000,000.
(prison pop and cost from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html)
a gets elected, we might even do away with prisons and just let the criminals run free anywhere they want, taking anything they want.
Sure and McCain shits rainbows out his ass.
Orleander
11-03-08, 06:12 AM
I don't remember but there are tickets for sale, so I assume not....
By the way the question wasn't the economic side of the story, but the humanity of it. One guy's family jewels got dmagaed, the warden's answer: "he doesn't need it here anyway."
do they sign a waiver before they voluntarily participate?
But you just did, didn't you. What you probably meant to say is that you have no good answer for the points in my post, so you make silly, childish excuses for not responding to it.
Baron Max
That's true, I have no good answer to your silly arguments.
I know you think it's somehow pretty cool of yourself that you are arguing points that you don't even believe in yourself, I just think it's dumb.
I have a lot of respect for you Baron, but I really don't know why you're acting like you do.
You know perfectly well that comparing cars with guns is nonsense.
Orleander
11-03-08, 07:02 AM
Yeah, cars are far worse.
Yeah, cars are far worse.
It's not the point which is worse in terms of annual deaths.
Baron Max
11-03-08, 08:22 AM
I know you think it's somehow pretty cool of yourself that you are arguing points that you don't even believe in yourself, I just think it's dumb.
So you think one has to actually believe something in order to make a valid, opposing argument? Surely you're joking, right? :D
You know perfectly well that comparing cars with guns is nonsense.
Well, sure. What it shows is that it's not the deaths that concern you at all. You have an agenda, and you're using the deaths as a point of argument. The reality is that the number of deaths mean little or nothing to you. Gun opponents often make that mistake ...and they're caught at often, too.
Baron Max
So you think one has to actually believe something in order to make a valid, opposing argument? Surely you're joking, right? :D
I'm not sure I understand why anyone would argue against something they believe in. Unless you don't give a shit either way..
Well, sure. What it shows is that it's not the deaths that concern you at all. You have an agenda, and you're using the deaths as a point of argument. The reality is that the number of deaths mean little or nothing to you. Gun opponents often make that mistake ...and they're caught at often, too.
Baron Max
You made a jump somewhere..
Baron Max
11-03-08, 08:38 AM
I'm not sure I understand why anyone would argue against something they believe in.
Helps me better understand my own beliefs and stance on issues.
Again, if it's the number of deaths that bother you, then your argument just don't hold water. So, tell me, what is it that bothers you about it?
Baron Max
Helps me better understand my own beliefs and stance on issues.
Again, if it's the number of deaths that bother you, then your argument just don't hold water. So, tell me, what is it that bothers you about it?
Baron Max
We were talking about capital punishment, not guns. You made that jump somewhere.
Baron Max
11-03-08, 08:54 AM
We were talking about capital punishment, not guns. You made that jump somewhere.
But it's the same thing, just different terms/arguments. You're against CP because of the possible loss of innocent life, right? Then if it's innocent lives that bother you, that cause you to be against CP, then you must also be against anything else that causes the loss of innocent life, right?
So, ....what say you now?
Baron Max
But it's the same thing, just different terms/arguments. You're against CP because of the possible loss of innocent life, right? Then if it's innocent lives that bother you, that cause you to be against CP, then you must also be against anything else that causes the loss of innocent life, right?
So, ....what say you now?
Baron Max
I already argued that there is a difference between CP that is intended to kill and a car that is not intended to kill.
CP is a deliberate policy to kill humans. To me it is insane to maintain a kill policy that potentially kills innocent people.
Baron Max
11-03-08, 09:16 AM
I already argued that there is a difference between CP that is intended to kill and a car that is not intended to kill.
CP is a deliberate policy to kill humans.
You don't get it, Enmos, both of those, and many more, kill innocent lives. I don't see that intention has anything to do with it. You obviously do, but I don't see how you can make that distinction without a helluva lot of twisting and turning of logic or reason.
To me it is insane to maintain a kill policy that potentially kills innocent people.
So how do you feel about maintaining cars on the road? Isn't that a policy that ultimately kills innocent people?
So how do you feel about alcohol being produced? Isn't that a policy that ultimately leads to drunk driving deaths?
See? You're going to try to argue that some of those "kill policies" are necessary, but CP isn't. Well, again, your argument does NOT hinge on number of innocent deaths. It hinges almost strictly on your bias against CP.
Loss of innocent lives = bad. But loss of innocent lives in cars = okay, because cars are necessary ...and the loss of lives is the cost of doing business in life. Don't sound like such a good argument, does it?
Baron Max
You don't get it, Enmos, both of those, and many more, kill innocent lives. I don't see that intention has anything to do with it. You obviously do, but I don't see how you can make that distinction without a helluva lot of twisting and turning of logic or reason.
So how do you feel about maintaining cars on the road? Isn't that a policy that ultimately kills innocent people?
So how do you feel about alcohol being produced? Isn't that a policy that ultimately leads to drunk driving deaths?
See? You're going to try to argue that some of those "kill policies" are necessary, but CP isn't. Well, again, your argument does NOT hinge on number of innocent deaths. It hinges almost strictly on your bias against CP.
Loss of innocent lives = bad. But loss of innocent lives in cars = okay, because cars are necessary ...and the loss of lives is the cost of doing business in life. Don't sound like such a good argument, does it?
Baron Max
Loss of innocent lives is never ok, but I guess we just disagree in the 'intent department'. I think intention is very important.
Baron Max
11-03-08, 09:28 AM
Loss of innocent lives is never ok, but I guess we just disagree in the 'intent department'. I think intention is very important.
Car manufacturers "intentionally" make cars that have the potential to kill people. If they made cars like Abrams tanks, then fewer or no innocent people would be killed. If they made cars that only go 25mph, then fewer or no innocent people would be killed.
Thus, the argument of "intent" is obviously alive and well. Yet you don't rant against cars or car manufacturers. Therefore, the loss of life is not your main concern ...you're just using it as a tool in your biased argument against CP. :D
Baron Max
Car manufacturers "intentionally" make cars that have the potential to kill people. If they made cars like Abrams tanks, then fewer or no innocent people would be killed. If they made cars that only go 25mph, then fewer or no innocent people would be killed.
Thus, the argument of "intent" is obviously alive and well. Yet you don't rant against cars or car manufacturers. Therefore, the loss of life is not your main concern ...you're just using it as a tool in your biased argument against CP. :D
Baron Max
Car manufacturers do a lot to make cars saver. It is, in fact, in their best interest to make cars as safe as they can. The same can hardly be said of CP, for it is intended to kill.
Baron Max
11-03-08, 10:34 AM
Car manufacturers do a lot to make cars saver. It is, in fact, in their best interest to make cars as safe as they can. The same can hardly be said of CP, for it is intended to kill.
Read my post again, do a little thinking "outside the box", if you still can't see it, or won't admit it, then fine.
Baron Max
Mr. Hamtastic
11-03-08, 01:31 PM
Angola? Prisoners suffering? But they were/are propped up by China/Russia. I thought the bad things were universally American? :shrug:
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.