30k Prisoner Hunger Strike Protesting Solitary - Page 12

On July 13 2013 21:36 Toadesstern wrote:
good thing you're not running a prison I guess?

On July 13 2013 22:07 Iplaythings wrote:

It's the same thing, you can hardly rehab someone if they are not out of a shitty environment, it's like wanting to rehab an alcoholic but put em around alot of alcohol and alcoholics who's drunk.

On July 13 2013 23:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:

No, it's like wanting to rehab an alcoholic and so you work him so goddamn hard every single day that he doesn't have the energy nor the time to even think about alcohol. Also, you remove anything resembling alcohol or anything that reminds him of alcohol (tattoo removal for all tattoos upon entering prison, uniform enforcement, no unauthorized association, etc.)

Also, rehabilitation is not my only concern, nor should it ever be the sole concern of anyone.

On July 13 2013 23:49 Shiori wrote:

What other concerns do you have?

On July 13 2013 23:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:

No, it's like wanting to rehab an alcoholic and so you work him so goddamn hard every single day that he doesn't have the energy nor the time to even think about alcohol. Also, you remove anything resembling alcohol or anything that reminds him of alcohol (tattoo removal for all tattoos upon entering prison, uniform enforcement, no unauthorized association, etc.)

Also, rehabilitation is not my only concern, nor should it ever be the sole concern of anyone.

On July 13 2013 23:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:

The safety of law-abiding (and non law-abiding) citizens, the general peace and well-being of society itself, and as unpopular as it is: punishment. I think the idea that punishment is synonymous with revenge is nonsensical.

On July 13 2013 23:52 Toadesstern wrote:

his point was that you can't expect someone to stop being violent by putting him in a situation that is being violent towards you on purpose. Maybe once to see what it's like from the other side but if you're being treated like an animal from a day to day basis, being tortured (which this thread is about) for the sake of getting your revenge there's really nothing you have to be suprised about if guy-in-question comes out of prison like an animal himself.

So you do agree that violence / torture should be avoided at all costs if possible after all? Because that's what you're trying to get people off of.

On July 13 2013 23:59 Shiori wrote:

The first two are basically the same thing. Punishment, to my mind, is definitely only for revenge, but I'm interested to know what other function you think it has?

On July 14 2013 00:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:

If a prisoner is refusing to follow the rules then something must be done to convince them that breaking the rules will lead to undesirable consequences. If you have a better, more effective way than solitary confinement than that should surely be used instead.

On July 13 2013 23:59 Shiori wrote:

The first two are basically the same thing. Punishment, to my mind, is definitely only for revenge, but I'm interested to know what other function you think it has?

On July 14 2013 00:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:

If a prisoner is refusing to follow the rules then something must be done to convince them that breaking the rules will lead to undesirable consequences. If you have a better, more effective way than solitary confinement than that should surely be used instead.


I think that punishment is enforced penance, and I think penance is absolutely necessary for the psychological well-being of both the criminal and the victim.

Also, rehabilitation is not my only concern, nor should it ever be the sole concern of anyone.

On July 14 2013 00:07 Fenris420 wrote:
Edit: Quotes seems to be messed up.


Oh but it should. The current prisons are essentially crime factories. There have been sources provided in this very thread that states people are more likely to continue being criminals after going to prison. That means the prison does not protect you from criminals, it actually makes it worse. You just delay the danger by a few years.

On top of this, we know that the violence in so called "max security" prisons is going to remain mostly the same in spite of all the guards and tazers etc. Is there any evidence that high security has done anything to reduce violence in prisons? I present: http://law.wustl.edu/Journal/22/p125Specter.pdf .This was not a hard find on scholar.

Lets take it one step further. Does anyone have any sources proclaimin any positive effects from solitary confinement or high security prisons in general? Does anyone have any sources where harsher sentences or stricter treatment of criminals had positive effects? Because I have plenty saying the opposite, as do others in this thread.

Feelings such as crime deserves punishment. While understandable, these feelings do not belong in a serious debate, especially not when confronted with science that says otherwise.

On July 14 2013 00:10 Fenris420 wrote:
Also:

Nothing changes the past, including punishment. The problem is that punishment negatively implicates the future. If there are people who need criminals to be punished in order to feel good, that is an issue and we should look into it. If that is true, it makes me sad.

On July 14 2013 00:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I should elaborate:

The statement: "our only concern should be rehabilitation" is so patently absurd that it can be rejected almost out of hand. Obviously a respect of human rights and basic dignity of even the most horrific criminals should also be a primary concern, otherwise any and all efforts that could conceivably lead to "rehabilitation" up to and including invasive medical/psychological procedures would be morally justified until they are either deemed to be effective or non-effective at rehabilitation. Not to mention the necessary arguing over what "rehabilitated" truly means.

Granting that rehabilitation is not our sole concern, we then come to the question of what our concerns should be and to what degree of importance or weight do those concerns have in relation to each other.

On July 14 2013 00:39 SoSexy wrote:


No! They didn't have the primary concern themselves, when they destroyed lifes/families. When they killed/raped/did the horrific crime, it's like they signed a paper where it's written 'I'm not a human being. I'm a beast.'

On July 14 2013 00:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:

They have not done any such thing. First, let us deal with the question of whether they have any rights whatsoever. It would be clear to most people that they do. Otherwise we could justify decades of constant physical torture and maiming for someone committing a murder/rape. Only the most disturbed and depraved mind would support removing a man's appendages and limbs one by one without anesthetic over an extended period of time, no matter what said man did or didn't do.

Now, are they no more than beasts? We don't torture beasts. So I suppose that grants them some rights. However, we do put beasts down quite often. I suppose you would support lethally injecting any convicted murderer once they've begun costing us too much money? And what if they are exonerated after we've done so? There have been cases of people being convicted of a crime and then revealed to be innocent. Respect for human rights should not be ignored just because the depraved showed no such respect. Otherwise we have become the very thing we're "fighting".