Discussion:
Opinion poll of inmates
(too old to reply)
Chris Assaf
2003-08-23 13:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

I want to know what your opinion of inmates is.

Should Parole exist? Are prisoners treated too harshyly? Do you care?
Should inmates get special privileges?

The reason why they are in RATV and the pro wrestling e-fed groups are
because of some postings that some of my ideas come from some
Peterborough jail inmates. :-);-):-p

Anyway, just what are your opinions of inmates?
aka MAX
2003-08-23 14:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Assaf
Hello,
I want to know what your opinion of inmates is.
Should Parole exist?
Of course, provided it is used to assist in the better management of prisons
inside by offering hope and outside by offering assistance in employment and
housing. It's obviously better for all concerned that once a person is
released they should be afforded the opportunity to get off being a monkey
on the back of taxpayers and made part of the taxpaying public.


Are prisoners treated too harshyly?

No two prisons are alike in that regard. There should be some sort of check
on how a warden allows his prison to be run. An Ombudsman appraoch seems
best suited to this manner of limiting abuse to both guards and prisoners.
If by harshly, you mean is the sentensing system functioning as it should,
i.e. "let the punishment fit the crime"? Then I take exception to this with
mandatory minumums and 2 or 3 strike Laws.

Do you care?

Do I care about abuse of taxpayer resourses? Of course. Folks work hard for
their money and if government claims it's spending money to "correct" felons
and turn them out worse than they were when they went in, I believe we ALL
should care. As for claiming some sort of squimishness about this or that
convict getting the holy shit kicked out of them, I reckon that sort of
thing goes on in the streets more often and that's not something I can care
about unless it's me or mine.
Post by Chris Assaf
Should inmates get special privileges?
What the hell do you call "special privilege"? All prisons begin with giving
one form of privilege or another for "control" sake. Some convict
"privileges" actually have been introduced to make guards recruitment easier
by setting a workplace an enviourment suitable for them to work in as wel as
Cons to live in. Anything beyond food, shelter and medical is a privilege.
Post by Chris Assaf
The reason why they are in RATV and the pro wrestling e-fed groups are
because of some postings that some of my ideas come from some
Like I said above, most of this extraordinary crap is for the guards.
Post by Chris Assaf
Peterborough jail inmates. :-);-):-p
Anyway, just what are your opinions of inmates?
Can't wait for them to learn enough and serve their time with earned
goodtime and get back on the streets healthier, saner and smarter than when
they went in.

And you?

MAX
Chris Assaf
2003-08-23 16:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by aka MAX
Post by Chris Assaf
Hello,
I want to know what your opinion of inmates is.
Should Parole exist?
Of course, provided it is used to assist in the better management of prisons
inside by offering hope and outside by offering assistance in employment and
housing. It's obviously better for all concerned that once a person is
released they should be afforded the opportunity to get off being a monkey
on the back of taxpayers and made part of the taxpaying public.
Are prisoners treated too harshyly?
No two prisons are alike in that regard. There should be some sort of check
on how a warden allows his prison to be run. An Ombudsman appraoch seems
best suited to this manner of limiting abuse to both guards and prisoners.
If by harshly, you mean is the sentensing system functioning as it should,
i.e. "let the punishment fit the crime"? Then I take exception to this with
mandatory minumums and 2 or 3 strike Laws.
Do you care?
Do I care about abuse of taxpayer resourses? Of course. Folks work hard for
their money and if government claims it's spending money to "correct" felons
and turn them out worse than they were when they went in, I believe we ALL
should care. As for claiming some sort of squimishness about this or that
convict getting the holy shit kicked out of them, I reckon that sort of
thing goes on in the streets more often and that's not something I can care
about unless it's me or mine.
Post by Chris Assaf
Should inmates get special privileges?
What the hell do you call "special privilege"? All prisons begin with giving
one form of privilege or another for "control" sake. Some convict
"privileges" actually have been introduced to make guards recruitment easier
by setting a workplace an enviourment suitable for them to work in as wel as
Cons to live in. Anything beyond food, shelter and medical is a privilege.
Post by Chris Assaf
The reason why they are in RATV and the pro wrestling e-fed groups are
because of some postings that some of my ideas come from some
Like I said above, most of this extraordinary crap is for the guards.
Post by Chris Assaf
Peterborough jail inmates. :-);-):-p
Anyway, just what are your opinions of inmates?
Can't wait for them to learn enough and serve their time with earned
goodtime and get back on the streets healthier, saner and smarter than when
they went in.
And you?
MAX
Let the punishment fit the crime. The ones that molest and kill should
serve life while the the ones that did not so serious crimes be put in
rehab centres.
Bru
2003-08-23 17:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Wouldn't you think though that one who deals crack and meth to little kids,
getting them hooked, ruining their lives and starting another chain of crime
does more damage than a molestor or murderer?
Post by Chris Assaf
Let the punishment fit the crime. The ones that molest and kill should
serve life while the the ones that did not so serious crimes be put in
rehab centres.
Chris Assaf
2003-08-23 21:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bru
Wouldn't you think though that one who deals crack and meth to little kids,
getting them hooked, ruining their lives and starting another chain of crime
does more damage than a molestor or murderer?
Post by Chris Assaf
Let the punishment fit the crime. The ones that molest and kill should
serve life while the the ones that did not so serious crimes be put in
rehab centres.
They do just about as much damage as the molestor and murderer. But
still, they should repent and turn to God while they still live.
Adam Jarmusch
2003-08-24 12:11:15 UTC
Permalink
...God doesn't exist. It's all a fairy tale.

- BLACK ADAM
Adam Jarmusch
2003-08-24 12:18:19 UTC
Permalink
As a former inmate and ex-hand in the meth game, I can tell you for certain
that nobody ever held a gun up to the head of any of these "little kids"
(from past experiences/encounters I've seen, the youngest of these so-called
'little kids' are usually 13 or 14 - old enough to know right from fucking
wrong, you'd think?) and forced them to buy/use the product. These little
shitfucks are usually the offspring of chemically dependent parents, and are
usually really fucking stupid.

So, should these "self made money men" be punished on an equal scale as
someone who molests a child/murders anyone? Then you hear the ol' "a felon
is a felon" argument, and things get REALLY fucking stupid.

Fuuuuuuuck.

- BLACK ADAM
reynolds wrap spokesman
Bru
2003-08-24 15:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Many other methods are used rather than "holding a gun" to someones head and
not all are the children of addicted parents. My son at age 13 was an Honor
Roll student, straight A's and a pretty good kid. Peer pressure was the gun
that was held to his head.

After years of addiction, theft etc to support his habit and 18 months in
rehab he pulled his shit together.

I come from San Diego so I'm no backwoods or midwest hick. I have seen it
happen over and over again. Especially when scumball dealers use other kids
to peddle their shit to even more kids.

Non of the listed felons here is a prize, all hurt more people than most
stop to think about. As an old hand with dealing if you need to lie to
yourself about how and how many kids you hurt so that you can face another
day without a gun to your own head be my guest. Just don't try to share your
fairy tale with someone who has stood back and watched it all without the
drug induced haze.

And BTW, out of courtesy to others, which I can see you haven't learned, I
have trimmed your cross posting.
Post by Adam Jarmusch
As a former inmate and ex-hand in the meth game, I can tell you for certain
that nobody ever held a gun up to the head of any of these "little kids"
(from past experiences/encounters I've seen, the youngest of these so-called
'little kids' are usually 13 or 14 - old enough to know right from fucking
wrong, you'd think?) and forced them to buy/use the product. These little
shitfucks are usually the offspring of chemically dependent parents, and are
usually really fucking stupid.
So, should these "self made money men" be punished on an equal scale as
someone who molests a child/murders anyone? Then you hear the ol' "a felon
is a felon" argument, and things get REALLY fucking stupid.
Fuuuuuuuck.
- BLACK ADAM
reynolds wrap spokesman
Dissident
2003-08-30 18:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Jarmusch
As a former inmate and ex-hand in the meth game, I can tell you for certain
that nobody ever held a gun up to the head of any of these "little kids"
(from past experiences/encounters I've seen, the youngest of these so-called
'little kids' are usually 13 or 14 - old enough to know right from fucking
wrong, you'd think?) and forced them to buy/use the product. These little
shitfucks are usually the offspring of chemically dependent parents, and are
usually really fucking stupid.
The exact same argument could be made in the case of 13 - 14
year olds choosing sex with adults as in choosing to buy drugs
from and/or party with adults. Funny thing is, folks see it in
a completely different light, depending on whether we're
talking sex or drugs. So which is it - are they to blame for
their own choices, or not?
Dissident
2003-08-31 01:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dissident
The exact same argument could be made in the case of 13 - 14
year olds choosing sex with adults as in choosing to buy drugs
from and/or party with adults. Funny thing is, folks see it in
a completely different light, depending on whether we're
talking sex or drugs. So which is it - are they to blame for
their own choices, or not?
Wonderful point!!!! :)
No it isn't. Most folks actually regard kids having sex with
adults and kids using recreational drugs in exactly the same way.
No, they don't. Oh sure, you say "I don't want my kids
being sold drugs, and I don't want my kids being molested".
And you mean it. But of the two, which one will produce
the real rage when it happens. My bet is the trigger word
is "molested". Also, which one will get the perpetrator
killed in prison? Hint: it ain't the drug dealer.
David Johnston
2003-08-31 03:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dissident
Post by Dissident
The exact same argument could be made in the case of 13 - 14
year olds choosing sex with adults as in choosing to buy drugs
from and/or party with adults. Funny thing is, folks see it in
a completely different light, depending on whether we're
talking sex or drugs. So which is it - are they to blame for
their own choices, or not?
Wonderful point!!!! :)
No it isn't. Most folks actually regard kids having sex with
adults and kids using recreational drugs in exactly the same way.
No, they don't. Oh sure, you say "I don't want my kids
being sold drugs, and I don't want my kids being molested".
And you mean it. But of the two, which one will produce
the real rage when it happens.
Go ahead. Sell some heroin to my ten year old. You'll see
some rage.
Bru
2003-08-31 06:27:00 UTC
Permalink
No doubt, and like I said before, when you get right down unemotionally to
the facts it's the drug dealer who causes the most damage. Getting a kid
addicted you promote everything from burglery to child prostitution. Teen
pregnancy fits right in there with the children of children being abused and
neglected. People have traded off their kids for sex in exchange for drugs,
borrowed, stolen and run their families into the ground, Whole gangs are
centered around drugs and the drug culture, people are killed over drug
debts both in and out of prison and it goes on and on. Molestion is indeed
abhorent and the molestors in need of punishment and therapy but drug
dealers do more damage, the addicts are in need of help but the dealers in
need of a big healthy dose of what they are dishing out.

Have you ever noticed that in the real world (not the movies) most big time
drug dealers are very very careful to keep their kids away from the
"business". Wonder why if it's so OK?
Oh I don't doubt it. But the one who molests the ten-yr-old
will be the one who brings out the protestors with signs
reading "sicko!" and demanding his death. The drug dealer,
who actually has more potential to ruin the kids life, will
be just another routine court case.
Alan
2003-08-25 10:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bru
Wouldn't you think though that one who deals crack and meth to little kids,
getting them hooked, ruining their lives and starting another chain of crime
does more damage than a molestor or murderer?
Post by Chris Assaf
Let the punishment fit the crime. The ones that molest and kill should
serve life while the the ones that did not so serious crimes be put in
rehab centres.
But if drugs were legal they wouldn't be dealt to minors.

And they wouldn't be impure, they would be regulated with information
on the harmful effects.

Drugs are a bad thing, and if drugs were legal more people might do
drugs. But criminalization is not the best answer....
Bru
2003-08-23 14:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Speaking for myself and about 8 parolees I know, they don't want parole (all
were or are paroled in California BTW) they would rather do straight time
and be done with it when they get out.
Post by Chris Assaf
Hello,
I want to know what your opinion of inmates is.
Should Parole exist? Are prisoners treated too harshyly? Do you care?
Should inmates get special privileges?
The reason why they are in RATV and the pro wrestling e-fed groups are
because of some postings that some of my ideas come from some
Peterborough jail inmates. :-);-):-p
Anyway, just what are your opinions of inmates?
William December Starr
2003-08-24 02:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bru
Speaking for myself and about 8 parolees I know, they don't want
parole (all were or are paroled in California BTW) they would
rather do straight time and be done with it when they get out.
Don't they have that option? Does the state force parole on inmates
who don't want it?

-- William December Starr <***@panix.com>
aka MAX
2003-08-24 02:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by William December Starr
Post by Bru
Speaking for myself and about 8 parolees I know, they don't want
parole (all were or are paroled in California BTW) they would
rather do straight time and be done with it when they get out.
Don't they have that option? Does the state force parole on inmates
who don't want it?
I sure don't have a clue. other than there are ways a Con could try and have
a record inside that would normally preclude him/her receving Parole.

BUT, it occurs to me in thinking over the mindset of Prison Ivory Tower
mensa minds, that a geriatric, or maybe terminal convict eligible for parole
would be granted it on a gurney. <grin> Pass the buck mentality.

MAX
Keith F. Lynch
2003-09-17 02:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by William December Starr
Don't they have that option? Does the state force parole on inmates
who don't want it?
In Virginia, a prisoner can refuse parole. In which case they just
stay in prison, of course.

This only applies to prisoners convicted before 1995. For more recent
prisoners, there is no parole.
--
Keith F. Lynch - ***@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
Bru
2003-08-24 03:11:12 UTC
Permalink
They sure do force it, Craig turned down parole once as he just wanted to
discharge, he was charged with failure to obey a direct order, loss of all
good time, 6 months more inside without it counting towards his discharge
date, the next time parole came up he signed like a good little boy and then
jumped the state to go back in. Jumping isn't a new charge in California and
there was no loss of good time LOL
Post by William December Starr
Post by Bru
Speaking for myself and about 8 parolees I know, they don't want
parole (all were or are paroled in California BTW) they would
rather do straight time and be done with it when they get out.
Don't they have that option? Does the state force parole on inmates
who don't want it?
William December Starr
2003-08-24 04:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bru
Post by William December Starr
Don't they have that option? Does the state force parole on
inmates who don't want it?
They sure do force it, Craig turned down parole once as he just
wanted to discharge, he was charged with failure to obey a direct
order, loss of all good time, 6 months more inside without it
counting towards his discharge date,
Wow. Is this some "reduce prison overcrowding" gimmick, or... well,
actually I can't even think of any other possible explanations.
Post by Bru
the next time parole came up he signed like a good little boy and
then jumped the state to go back in. Jumping isn't a new charge in
California and there was no loss of good time LOL
Good for him.

-- William December Starr <***@panix.com>
Dissident
2003-08-30 18:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bru
They sure do force it, Craig turned down parole once as he just wanted to
discharge, he was charged with failure to obey a direct order, loss of all
good time, 6 months more inside without it counting towards his discharge
date, the next time parole came up he signed like a good little boy and then
jumped the state to go back in. Jumping isn't a new charge in California and
there was no loss of good time LOL
How can they just hold him for 6 months and not have it count
towards a court-imposed sentence, even if it is just counting
against good time that was taken? Is CDC now allow to impose
new sentences on its own, rather than just take away good time
which was optional anyway? Do they see themselves as more
powerful than the courts? If so, they need to be taken down
a notch.
Dissident
2003-08-31 01:31:37 UTC
Permalink
This is California we're talking about remember. He was in on violation so
there wasn't a court sentence to deal with. They can impose new time for
incarceration time violations and they do on a regular basis.
New time? For just regusing to sign their goddam piece
of paper? Let me get this straight. If I go in with 3
years, even though I could get out in about half that
with good time they can always deny my good time and make
me do all 3. That I can understand. But you're saying
that, without any new court conviction, they can just up
and impose new sentences of their own, and keep me for
more than three? If so, some of them need to be shot.
Dead. Give me the gun and I'll do it myself. Seriously.
Bru
2003-08-31 19:31:58 UTC
Permalink
It worked out to just over a year more than the court sentence because
california can give you up to a year dead time that doesn't count if you
violate parole and then the refusal to sign was counted as a new charge.
Court sentence was 5 years adding total time in and on parole he did 6 years
and 3 months.
I think what your saying matches... Here's what happened. He went in on
a
parole violation for 1 year, at the end of that year he was to parole
again,
he refused to sign the parole papers, they gave him 6 months for refusal
to
obey a direct order, at the end of that 6 months he was again
givenparole
papers and told if he didn't sign them he would do another 6 months,
none of
the previous 6 had counted towards his parole, the second time he signed
the
papers. Does that sound the same to you?
What I want to know is, how much of it counted towards a
*court-ordered* sentence. Since parole more-or-less means
getting out early on your good faith (it's supposed to, I
know it doesn't really any more) then it's still like good
time. So if he maxed out, how much total time (wall calendar
days) did he do, and what was his original sentence? If the
total days add up to more than the sentence, and no new court
judgement was involved, then he was kidnapped, not imprisoned,
and he had a right (and in my opinion a duty) to escape. So
what were the actual, total numbers? It gets too confusing
when they break it down to "this is good time", "this is
parole violation time", etc.
Keith F. Lynch
2003-09-17 02:40:33 UTC
Permalink
If the total days add up to more than the sentence, and no new court
judgement was involved, then he was kidnapped, not imprisoned, and
he had a right (and in my opinion a duty) to escape.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it's ok for a state to keep someone
locked up after their sentence is over, if a psychiatrist determines
that they're "still a danger to society".

So far, I think this has only been invoked for people convicted of sex
offenses. Mostly for the ones who refuse to admit their guilt. Many
of whom probably are innocent, in my opinion.
--
Keith F. Lynch - ***@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
Lefty
2003-09-18 02:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
If the total days add up to more than the sentence, and no new court
judgement was involved, then he was kidnapped, not imprisoned, and
he had a right (and in my opinion a duty) to escape.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it's ok for a state to keep someone
locked up after their sentence is over, if a psychiatrist determines
that they're "still a danger to society".
The genius of the state.

Next thing they will be going after ex-cons who have been released many
years after their sentence has been completed, because of the recommendation
of a psychiatrist.

Next to go will be non-felons, to be locked up on the recommendation of a
psychiatrist.

There is really no justice, nor law to follow, they make it up as they go
along, and your freedom and liberty is just a slogans they throw around
which dont really exist. There are those who are favored, and those who are
not. Felons are not favored, and so the law affords nothing to them.
j***@hotmail.com
2003-09-19 12:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lefty
Post by Keith F. Lynch
If the total days add up to more than the sentence, and no new court
judgement was involved, then he was kidnapped, not imprisoned, and
he had a right (and in my opinion a duty) to escape.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it's ok for a state to keep someone
locked up after their sentence is over, if a psychiatrist determines
that they're "still a danger to society".
The genius of the state.
Next thing they will be going after ex-cons who have been released many
years after their sentence has been completed, because of the recommendation
of a psychiatrist.
Next to go will be non-felons, to be locked up on the recommendation of a
psychiatrist.
There is really no justice, nor law to follow, they make it up as they go
along, and your freedom and liberty is just a slogans they throw around
which dont really exist. There are those who are favored, and those who are
not. Felons are not favored, and so the law affords nothing to them.
What I see as the worst aspect of this practice is that the
psychiatrist working for the state ain't making much money; gummint
just doens't pay all that much. This leads me to thinking why is this
degreed psychiatrist, who _could_ be making $100/hour or more in
private practice, working for chicken-feed? Maybe he's lazy, or just
not very good.

So you've got this underpaid public civil servant in a cushy, easy job
and he's being asked "should we let this one guy out?" If he says yes
and the guy re-offends, he's got a serious problem. If he says no then
there's no problem.
RA
2003-08-23 19:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Assaf
Hello,
I want to know what your opinion of inmates is.
Should Parole exist? Are prisoners treated too harshyly? Do you care?
Should inmates get special privileges?
The reason why they are in RATV and the pro wrestling e-fed groups are
because of some postings that some of my ideas come from some
Peterborough jail inmates. :-);-):-p
Anyway, just what are your opinions of inmates?
Stop posting in rec.arts.tv you fart sniffing, shit eating, cocksucking, scumbag.
Chris Assaf
2003-08-24 00:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by RA
Stop posting in rec.arts.tv you fart sniffing, shit eating, cocksucking, scumbag.
Guess where I am writing from? And guess where my ideas came from?
John J. Kuczynski
2003-08-24 00:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Assaf
Post by RA
Stop posting in rec.arts.tv you fart sniffing, shit eating, cocksucking, scumbag.
Guess where I am writing from? And guess where my ideas came from?
The booby hatch and up your ass. NOW STOP!!
Chris Assaf
2003-08-24 00:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by RA
Post by Chris Assaf
Hello,
I want to know what your opinion of inmates is.
Should Parole exist? Are prisoners treated too harshyly? Do you care?
Should inmates get special privileges?
The reason why they are in RATV and the pro wrestling e-fed groups are
because of some postings that some of my ideas come from some
Peterborough jail inmates. :-);-):-p
Anyway, just what are your opinions of inmates?
Stop posting in rec.arts.tv you fart sniffing, shit eating, cocksucking, scumbag.
Ra, THis thread is strictly to talk about the opinions on inmates.
Ubiquitous
2003-08-24 01:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Assaf
Should Parole exist? Are prisoners treated too harshyly? Do you care?
Should inmates get special privileges?
Most, if not all of them vote Democrat. Ask there if you really want
to know.
--
======================================================================
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.
Stewart Connor
2003-08-24 02:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Usenet newbie punk kid... future guard
Napalm Heart
2003-08-24 16:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stewart Connor
Usenet newbie punk kid... future guard
Not in any state that prevents ex-offenders from working inside.
Convicted Arsonist
2003-08-24 07:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Hrm, it's a hypothetical situation in which a meth dealer peddles his
drugs
to a little kid, ruins the kid's life, and "makes" the kid to go on a
crime
spree versus a guy who molests said child and emotionally harms him or
flat
out murders them, leaving them with no life whatsoever to fuck up and a
bunch of family members and loved ones who must cope with the loss and
deal
with the pain of losing someone close to them.
It's so damn simple.

Evacuate Guam, and throw every convicted felon on there.

Install a well protected administrative office, as well as military border
surveillance and patrol.

Let them live under anarchy, with the most powerful or influencial inmates
making the rules. No weapons unless inmates can smuggle them in, or use
hand carved knives or bludgeons made of rock.

After doing this, I'm sure more countries will follow suit, and the world
will be scattered with tiny prison islands.

Not only that, but I can imagine alot of cool stories being told by anyone
that has had to serve time.

ACS
Jesse
2003-09-19 05:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Assaf
Hello,
I want to know what your opinion of inmates is.
Should Parole exist? Are prisoners treated too harshyly? Do you care?
Should inmates get special privileges?
The reason why they are in RATV and the pro wrestling e-fed groups are
because of some postings that some of my ideas come from some
Peterborough jail inmates. :-);-):-p
Anyway, just what are your opinions of inmates?
The entire idea of prision is such an outdated waste of time. Looking
at it this way, what is the purpose of a prison. Lets put people in a
little room and make them think about what they did. Okay maybe some
would say its to keep criminals off the street, ah yes i feel so much
safer with embezelars and tax evaders in those little cells, same with
people who didnt pay their credit card bills, outdated tickets,
trespassers. Hey what about drug addicts, some people who lost all
faith in life, feel they have nothing and thus find drugs a nice
alternative to suicide. Im happy there off the streets. Far better
then trying to restate a feeling of life in these people.

So back to the point of prision, you dont want to go there because its
a bad place. therefore in America where we take human rights always
into account we say to people if your bad youll be put into a place
where you are tortured daily, subject to racism, fear sleeping,
beaten, raped, burned, always watching your back, sucking dick for
protection. Isnt that what a prison is, so in essence we are saying if
youre bad (even a j-walking ticket you havent paid) you will be
tortured for no less than a year.

So, say you go to prison, youre in your little cell, youre afraid, you
make contacts, there ya go when your released you now have access to
better drugs, better weapons and manpower. Your contacts will
invairably be your race beings when you go to prison you are divided
by race for "protection" so the blacks hate the whites who hate the
spanish who hate the asians who hate everyone. So you go into prison a
scared lonly chemicaly dependent person and you come out a racist drug
dealer. Prison is working so far. (true story)

What about the reabilitation properties of prison. yep, lets look at
the statistics of people who return to prison after getting out,
people who go to prison with nothing, go in make contacts, get out
with less than the nothing they originally had and must turn to people
with the guns and the drugs. It is even kind of hard to think about
the bad things you did when some huge guy is making you grab your
ankles.

And the prison garuds, good ol football players from high school who
have nothing and thus love watching people fight and bleed.
(admittingly i know several gaurds who are nice people, but they are
more of an exception).

Therefore in America, the land of the free and human rights and
amnisty international we say "we care about our people but if you get
out of line you will be mercilessly tortured and nobody will care." -
and one of the many reasons i left america, the land of the setting
sun.
Jesse
2003-09-22 05:12:12 UTC
Permalink
In my original message,
(news:<***@posting.google.com>)I was
addressing the fact that prisons are pointless, its a place to put
"bad people" and forget about them. But everyone seems to forget that
they get out eventually, and that they get out after X years of fear,
hate, fighting, etc every minute of every day. Now they are more
powerful and less likely to become productive members of society.

When prisons were first used, people didnt sit in a cell and think
(this is a figurative statement, yes they go in the yard etc) but were
put in a cell to be physically abused. This old testament treatment is
outdated today where, especially in america, we have so much money
that could be spent on targeting specific enviornments where crime
breeds, finding out why the crime exists, alternatives to the crimes
commited.

What about in prisons they could offer, specialized job training, job
placement, reduced rent in areas not infested with crime far from
there original home. Maybe after a life of fighting, drugs, death, etc
a person isnt able to deal with white collar suburban life, so how
about military tactics or special forces, civilian police gang
relations (again far from home where nobody knows the convict), riot
squad. Sublimation is using an undesirable trait for the benefit of
society, shouldnt more be researched in that field.

Take a drug lord for example, obviously they have strong managerial
characteristics, charisma, determination, willpower, perceverince, its
just steered in the "wrong way". Now remove someone from prison, with
a prison record, who once made more in a night than cops do in a
month, had status, power and ask him to work in a convienence store.
Thats all he'll be working with a prison record following him around.
And why are we trying to remove the so many positive characteristics.

Take a person who loves to use exotic instruments to inflict pain and
hear people scream and moan, we call them dentists (textbook example
of sublimation)


But dont misunderstand, today isnt the day to let criminals out and
hope for the best. They arent in prison because theyre nice
embezelars, but rapists, torturers and people who would slit your
throat for a new pair of shoes. I agree totally with <nadacomin>. But
now is the time to change these outdated practices of "if you're bad
we'll hit you."

As <nadacomin> also stated, (paraphrased) "we have free will and
personal responsibility." With this free will so many people choose
the "wrong" path. Why is that, maybe some feel differently towards
personal responsibility then somebody raised with 3 meals a day, tv,
telephone and a car.

But why wouldnt these ideas work? The taxpayers are jealous and
arragont. "Why should criminals be given stuff, i sit here and suffer
and get nothing" they think, "then why dont we all just go out and be
criminals." Its expected pety logic in a captialist society where
everyone wants to be better than their neighbor. These people too
chose a path, and they suffer in a differnt way.

any comments?
Bru
2003-09-23 03:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Basically if you look back to the earlier forms of justice they were
punishments applied swiftly (not after months or years fighting in court)
and the punishments themselves were short, immediate and to the point. They
did not eat up years and decades of peoples lives nor did they destroy
families. At the same time they were often administered to the innocent. Is
it worth the trade off? That's up to each person to answer.

As for your statement that most come out worse than when they went in...
Can't argue with that one. The only counter agent to that I have ever seen
are those who do the time rather than letting the time do them.
Post by Jesse
In my original message,
addressing the fact that prisons are pointless, its a place to put
"bad people" and forget about them. But everyone seems to forget that
they get out eventually, and that they get out after X years of fear,
hate, fighting, etc every minute of every day. Now they are more
powerful and less likely to become productive members of society.
When prisons were first used, people didnt sit in a cell and think
(this is a figurative statement, yes they go in the yard etc) but were
put in a cell to be physically abused. This old testament treatment is
outdated today where, especially in america, we have so much money
that could be spent on targeting specific enviornments where crime
breeds, finding out why the crime exists, alternatives to the crimes
commited.
What about in prisons they could offer, specialized job training, job
placement, reduced rent in areas not infested with crime far from
there original home. Maybe after a life of fighting, drugs, death, etc
a person isnt able to deal with white collar suburban life, so how
about military tactics or special forces, civilian police gang
relations (again far from home where nobody knows the convict), riot
squad. Sublimation is using an undesirable trait for the benefit of
society, shouldnt more be researched in that field.
Take a drug lord for example, obviously they have strong managerial
characteristics, charisma, determination, willpower, perceverince, its
just steered in the "wrong way". Now remove someone from prison, with
a prison record, who once made more in a night than cops do in a
month, had status, power and ask him to work in a convienence store.
Thats all he'll be working with a prison record following him around.
And why are we trying to remove the so many positive characteristics.
Take a person who loves to use exotic instruments to inflict pain and
hear people scream and moan, we call them dentists (textbook example
of sublimation)
But dont misunderstand, today isnt the day to let criminals out and
hope for the best. They arent in prison because theyre nice
embezelars, but rapists, torturers and people who would slit your
throat for a new pair of shoes. I agree totally with <nadacomin>. But
now is the time to change these outdated practices of "if you're bad
we'll hit you."
As <nadacomin> also stated, (paraphrased) "we have free will and
personal responsibility." With this free will so many people choose
the "wrong" path. Why is that, maybe some feel differently towards
personal responsibility then somebody raised with 3 meals a day, tv,
telephone and a car.
But why wouldnt these ideas work? The taxpayers are jealous and
arragont. "Why should criminals be given stuff, i sit here and suffer
and get nothing" they think, "then why dont we all just go out and be
criminals." Its expected pety logic in a captialist society where
everyone wants to be better than their neighbor. These people too
chose a path, and they suffer in a differnt way.
any comments?
X Guard
2003-09-30 05:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Treatment is a waste of time. u guys commit crime to make money. u r too
lazy to get jobs and work like the majority of Americans. if u were smart
criminals u would move to another country (and take all you "friends" with
you) and go make a fortune and live happily ever after.

X-Guard
Post by Bru
Basically if you look back to the earlier forms of justice they were
punishments applied swiftly (not after months or years fighting in court)
and the punishments themselves were short, immediate and to the point. They
did not eat up years and decades of peoples lives nor did they destroy
families. At the same time they were often administered to the innocent. Is
it worth the trade off? That's up to each person to answer.
As for your statement that most come out worse than when they went in...
Can't argue with that one. The only counter agent to that I have ever seen
are those who do the time rather than letting the time do them.
Post by Jesse
In my original message,
addressing the fact that prisons are pointless, its a place to put
"bad people" and forget about them. But everyone seems to forget that
they get out eventually, and that they get out after X years of fear,
hate, fighting, etc every minute of every day. Now they are more
powerful and less likely to become productive members of society.
When prisons were first used, people didnt sit in a cell and think
(this is a figurative statement, yes they go in the yard etc) but were
put in a cell to be physically abused. This old testament treatment is
outdated today where, especially in america, we have so much money
that could be spent on targeting specific enviornments where crime
breeds, finding out why the crime exists, alternatives to the crimes
commited.
What about in prisons they could offer, specialized job training, job
placement, reduced rent in areas not infested with crime far from
there original home. Maybe after a life of fighting, drugs, death, etc
a person isnt able to deal with white collar suburban life, so how
about military tactics or special forces, civilian police gang
relations (again far from home where nobody knows the convict), riot
squad. Sublimation is using an undesirable trait for the benefit of
society, shouldnt more be researched in that field.
Take a drug lord for example, obviously they have strong managerial
characteristics, charisma, determination, willpower, perceverince, its
just steered in the "wrong way". Now remove someone from prison, with
a prison record, who once made more in a night than cops do in a
month, had status, power and ask him to work in a convienence store.
Thats all he'll be working with a prison record following him around.
And why are we trying to remove the so many positive characteristics.
Take a person who loves to use exotic instruments to inflict pain and
hear people scream and moan, we call them dentists (textbook example
of sublimation)
But dont misunderstand, today isnt the day to let criminals out and
hope for the best. They arent in prison because theyre nice
embezelars, but rapists, torturers and people who would slit your
throat for a new pair of shoes. I agree totally with <nadacomin>. But
now is the time to change these outdated practices of "if you're bad
we'll hit you."
As <nadacomin> also stated, (paraphrased) "we have free will and
personal responsibility." With this free will so many people choose
the "wrong" path. Why is that, maybe some feel differently towards
personal responsibility then somebody raised with 3 meals a day, tv,
telephone and a car.
But why wouldnt these ideas work? The taxpayers are jealous and
arragont. "Why should criminals be given stuff, i sit here and suffer
and get nothing" they think, "then why dont we all just go out and be
criminals." Its expected pety logic in a captialist society where
everyone wants to be better than their neighbor. These people too
chose a path, and they suffer in a differnt way.
any comments?
j***@hotmail.com
2003-09-30 05:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by X Guard
Treatment is a waste of time. u guys commit crime to make money. u r too
lazy to get jobs and work like the majority of Americans. if u were smart
criminals u would move to another country (and take all you "friends" with
you) and go make a fortune and live happily ever after.
Fuck off. My crime wasn't about money. I hurt someone terribly and I'm
not the least bit proud or happy about it. But I did my time, I've
been employed since I got out and haven't done a single fucking thing
wrong since then. You're just another shithead who has closed his mind
to possibilities and enjoy putting others down so you can feel good
about yourself.
Post by X Guard
X-Guard
Yeah, I bet. Sorry-ass attitude like yours, I'd get out of the
business too.
Keith F. Lynch
2003-10-14 03:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by X Guard
Treatment is a waste of time. u guys commit crime to make money.
u r too lazy to get jobs and work like the majority of Americans.
I agree that treatment is a waste of time. Crime is not a disease.
People commit crimes because they decide to do so, not because they
are in need of treatment.

Besides, many prisoners are innocent.
--
Keith F. Lynch - ***@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
D E M I G O D
2003-10-14 19:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Besides, many prisoners are innocent.
Moreover, every one of them (i.e.-100%) is saying that he/she does not
deserve the troubles they have been given and being put through.

Therefore, everyone, who says that all prisoners should be mistreated
because they deserve so, should know that it would be double of
absolutely wrong, and is ought to be extremely careful when saying so.
Because one is (obviously and blatantly) asking for trouble, and may
GET it, sooner or later...
Critter
2003-10-15 03:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by D E M I G O D
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Besides, many prisoners are innocent.
Moreover, every one of them (i.e.-100%) is saying that he/she does not
deserve the troubles they have been given and being put through.
Therefore, everyone, who says that all prisoners should be mistreated
because they deserve so, should know that it would be double of
absolutely wrong, and is ought to be extremely careful when saying so.
Because one is (obviously and blatantly) asking for trouble, and may
GET it, sooner or later...
I can always count on you man - and just when I thought I'd never laugh
again.

One thing which I find amazing - when you look at all the problems of the
world today, inmates are seldom mentioned. It is NON-inmates who are
warring, NON-inmates who are at home beating their wives and kids,
NON-inmates who are ripping off their own employees like they did at Enron,
NON-inmates who are out there driving drunk, you name it. It is NON-inmates
who are out dealing dope, NON-inmates who are robbing banks, bla bla bla.

Clearly it is NON-inmates who belong in jail, as none of this can possibly
be the fault of those who can be proved innocent by virtue of their
incarceration.
Critter
2003-10-15 04:16:56 UTC
Permalink
In fact, if you look at the Anthrax attack which followed 911, we find that
it was certainly not ex-convicts who had a hand in this, no, this was, by
definition an act of one of our own hand picked people who are supposedly a
cut above the average slob. Somebody had access to that military lab, and
some motherfucker sent that shit through the mail. It was clearly NOT an
ex-con, and it was almost certainly a member of the military.

Perhaps it would then make more sense to ban all military men from flying,
or working in airports, or owning guns, or voting, etc etc etc.
Critter
2003-10-15 04:25:05 UTC
Permalink
You have to wonder when the standards which individuals are held to might
also be applied to society at large.

I committed a crime and they came and took my little guns away. But when the
military commits a crime, why then are they not disarmed as well ? Clearly,
we see an institution which is engaging in a perpetuated pattern of
violence, so many crimes have been committed by the military, when do we
take their guns away ?
Post by Critter
In fact, if you look at the Anthrax attack which followed 911, we find that
it was certainly not ex-convicts who had a hand in this, no, this was, by
definition an act of one of our own hand picked people who are supposedly a
cut above the average slob. Somebody had access to that military lab, and
some motherfucker sent that shit through the mail. It was clearly NOT an
ex-con, and it was almost certainly a member of the military.
Perhaps it would then make more sense to ban all military men from flying,
or working in airports, or owning guns, or voting, etc etc etc.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...