Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

ok , i know many people talk about this in many ways on many forums, but i have a concept

 

why do we put someone who got introuble for say pot, in prison with violent offenders

 

while i know there is a "tier" of the system

i think anything on a federal level

 

you should be put in prison with those who have done what you have

 

so non violent crimes, the offender doesn't become a worse person by being around violent people

 

what do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok , i know many people talk about this in many ways on many forums, but i have a concept

 

why do we put someone who got in trouble for say pot, in prison with violent offenders

 

while i know there is a "tier" of the system

i think anything on a federal level

 

you should be put in prison with those who have done what you have

 

so non violent crimes, the offender doesn't become a worse person by being around violent people

 

what do you think?

 

Well the short answer is your right, but it gets more complicated when you try to get more money to fund separate prisons for different categories of prisoners. I'm sure there's a solution to this problem, like legalizing pot and not making criminals out of those people in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Over here, in South Africa, sending a petty criminal off to jail is often seen as sending him to "Crime University". When he comes out, he's a much more dangerous and able criminal.

 

I've got another sort of idea, though. Not too much to do with your original post, but it does tie in, in a bit of an off-hand way:

 

Crime in itself is merely an individual stating, through his actions, that he does not agree with the Laws governing Society, and that he thus does not feel bound by them. Society says, for instance, that "Murder is wrong". This could be sourced from many different origins, some people will tell you that that particular clause in our mutual agreement to live together in a cohesive society might spring from "God" telling it to Moses many years ago, up on the mountain. Wherever it is claimed to spring from, under whoever's authority, the mutually agreed ruling that "Murder is wrong" is a fundamental building block necessary for our society to operate. Now, if someone kills someone else, premeditated, not an act of "passion" or whatever the case might be, that particular "criminal" simply states that he does not agree with the rules that makes it possible for us to live in a civilized society. So why should we entertain him for many years, at our cost, in a tax-paid institution where we try to conform him to our world-view? He already made it clear through his actions that he does not agree with our rules.

 

So what do we do?

 

Here's my proposal:

 

Cut off a piece of land, say, a few hundred kilometers square. Let the army patrol the borders, put up electrified fencing around the place. Declare that piece of land independent of your country. Throw every criminal guilty of breaking fundamental societal rules in there, and let them do in that piece of land whatever they please. There would be no rules there (that's what they wanted, right?), unless the criminals figure out that they need some sort of order and form their own "government". If they have to slug it out for the top position, let it be so. If most of them die in the process, let it be so. They made it clear through their crimes that they much prefer anarchy to order, so giving it to them is merely complying with their wishes. They're more than welcome to try and visit the original country, but they have to apply for a visa. And the original country simply won't issue a visa to someone with a murder charge on their record. Simple.

 

Oh well, dream on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Over here, in South Africa, sending a petty criminal off to jail is often seen as sending him to "Crime University". When he comes out, he's a much more dangerous and able criminal.

 

I've got another sort of idea, though. Not too much to do with your original post, but it does tie in, in a bit of an off-hand way:

 

Crime in itself is merely an individual stating, through his actions, that he does not agree with the Laws governing Society, and that he thus does not feel bound by them. Society says, for instance, that "Murder is wrong". This could be sourced from many different origins, some people will tell you that that particular clause in our mutual agreement to live together in a cohesive society might spring from "God" telling it to Moses many years ago, up on the mountain. Wherever it is claimed to spring from, under whoever's authority, the mutually agreed ruling that "Murder is wrong" is a fundamental building block necessary for our society to operate. Now, if someone kills someone else, premeditated, not an act of "passion" or whatever the case might be, that particular "criminal" simply states that he does not agree with the rules that makes it possible for us to live in a civilized society. So why should we entertain him for many years, at our cost, in a tax-paid institution where we try to conform him to our world-view? He already made it clear through his actions that he does not agree with our rules.

 

So what do we do?

 

Here's my proposal:

 

Cut off a piece of land, say, a few hundred kilometers square. Let the army patrol the borders, put up electrified fencing around the place. Declare that piece of land independent of your country. Throw every criminal guilty of breaking fundamental societal rules in there, and let them do in that piece of land whatever they please. There would be no rules there (that's what they wanted, right?), unless the criminals figure out that they need some sort of order and form their own "government". If they have to slug it out for the top position, let it be so. If most of them die in the process, let it be so. They made it clear through their crimes that they much prefer anarchy to order, so giving it to them is merely complying with their wishes. They're more than welcome to try and visit the original country, but they have to apply for a visa. And the original country simply won't issue a visa to someone with a murder charge on their record. Simple.

 

Oh well, dream on.

 

So if I'm a productive member of society that likes to smoke a little pot now and then, you would make me a criminal and throw me in with the wolves? (Just asking?):blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

well in my view, there are so many prisons in america, we could sort of turn the into magnet prisons, each federal prison having a focus,

 

murder

 

child abuse and spuse abuse

 

 

violent assult

 

child sex offenders

 

rape and sodomy

 

these are 4 major issues

 

then there is theft

 

non- violent theft

 

corporate theft

 

anything with violence could be catogorized under violent assult

 

 

 

the thing is, we don't need to be sending a criminal to a place where he learns to be a better criminal, or worse, a more intense criminal

 

because of the fact then when released from prison, jobs are hard to find, thus, back to a life of crime

 

while i smoke pot sometimes and partake in other things, that is my only crime,

 

while i disagree that i should be put in prison for such things, and assert that the prison system itself could use an upgrade in phylosophy,

 

there has to be a way that makes it cheaper for the taxpayer, if we are payin to make a minor criminal a major criminal, then we are backtracking as a nation

 

conversly, if we have a way to adress each issue in a fashon that achieves a level of civility, then we progress, and reduce the impact on the taxpayer

Link to post
Share on other sites

there has to be a way that makes it cheaper for the taxpayer, if we are paying to make a minor criminal a major criminal, then we are backtracking as a nation

 

conversely, if we have a way to address each issue in a fashion that achieves a level of civility, then we progress, and reduce the impact on the taxpayer

 

Whatever happened to prisoners earning their own keep and maybe gaining a few skills they could use to become productive citizens when they've served their time?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i had a friend that got busted with pot, while on the run, he learned how to administer a linux network,

 

when he got cought, he tried for a buisness degree

 

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

on the topic of jobs, it is difficult to get a job with a record anyway

 

hence, consting the taxpayers money anyway, ( less tax money )

 

on the topic of cosing more to make magnet prisons, the initial cost of sending criminals to their prospective magnet prisons

 

would be the major hurdle,

 

while upkeep, you just send them to their magnet

 

imagine being able to apply for a visa to get out of jail

 

interesting, but......

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Here's my proposal:

 

Cut off a piece of land, say, a few hundred kilometers square. Let the army patrol the borders, put up electrified fencing around the place. Declare that piece of land independent of your country. Throw every criminal guilty of breaking fundamental societal rules in there, and let them do in that piece of land whatever they please. There would be no rules there (that's what they wanted, right?), unless the criminals figure out that they need some sort of order and form their own "government". If they have to slug it out for the top position, let it be so. If most of them die in the process, let it be so. They made it clear through their crimes that they much prefer anarchy to order, so giving it to them is merely complying with their wishes.

Do you realize, Boerseun, that up to this point, you’ve described almost exactly (a bit different is size, as Manhattan island is only about 60 km2) the premise of John Carpenter’s 1981 cult classic film Escape from New York?

 

Though deserving of its characterization as a “B movie” (that is, lower production quality an “A movie”) IMHO Escape is a must see for any even semi-serious student of SF, film, American culture, the politics and sociology of incarceration, or just plain fun. I’ve lost count of how many times I watched it, many of them at SF conventions and “midnight cult” theatre showings.

 

There were some similar fictional treatments of this idea in later years, such as the 1992 film Fortress, and Carpenter’s higher-budget but less well received 1994 sequil Escape from L.A., establishing this as a SF trope, I think.

 

They're more than welcome to try and visit the original country, but they have to apply for a visa. And the original country simply won't issue a visa to someone with a murder charge on their record.

Boerseun’s proposal splits from the Carpenter screenplay here, as the movie’s exile land was legally a maximum security prison, no exits allowed.

 

Neither Carpenter’s screenplay or B’s proposal addresses an old question of mine on the subject: the legal status of the children of the inmates. Unless the sexes were segregated in separate prison/countries, or all inmate/citizens sterilized, I think this would become a sensitive political issue!

 

There is a well known historic precedent for something somewhat like this proposal: the “convictism” of Australia by Great Britain in the late 1700s. To the best of my knowledge, none of the children of even convicts sentenced “for the rest of their natural lives” in Australia were systematically barred from travel and migration to other countries. The convict and free Australian colonists weren’t kept strictly separate by electric fences and army patrols (I’m pretty sure England couldn’t have begun to afford this then, and am unsure if any state could today, especially as I can think of no unsettled “free” lands to be had now), this isn’t an exact precedent, but I imagine any present-day penal colony would likely have the same outcome.

 

I imagine this would make any ongoing scheme along these lines complicated, as, if Australia is a good predictive model within, a decade or two, the colonies will object to prisoners being sent to them, and want, with good claim, to be re-integrated with non-prison society. Having been a “no rules” anarchy for a generation, however, such re-integration might be more of a problem than the prison originally solved.

 

To me, the idea, which seemed plausible in 1980s America (enough for filmwriters in 1981 to predict it occurring in 1988), seems less so now. Boerseum’s post, though, makes me think it may seem plausible in present day South Africa, and wonder if SA fiction writers are producing any explorations of it. :QuestionM

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I'm all for America's three strikes law. Too many criminals in the UK spend their life in and out of prison, or being let off by soft judges (as in soft in the head).

 

As to pot, it can cause cancers but so can cigarettes. Most have little problem with it but some gain assorted mental illnesses from little use and even one use it is said can introduce paranoia in some people and worse:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156547/Cannabis-smoking-mother-smothered-seven-month-old-daughter-suffering-delusions.html

 

From today's newspaper.

 

And not forgetting that drug driving is at least as bad as drunk driving.

 

And some more on marijuana:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080707161411.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071217110328.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080213160851.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301143424.htm

 

 

And as to medical cannabis:

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2151652/Cannabis-does-slow-progress-multiple-sclerosis-scientists-claim-blow-hopes-drug-provide-relief-sufferers.html

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for America's three strikes law. Too many criminals in the UK spend their life in and out of prison, or being let off by soft judges (as in soft in the head).

 

I would agree for only crimes that hurt others.

 

As to pot, it can cause cancers but so can cigarettes. Most have little problem with it but some gain assorted mental illnesses from little use and even one use it is said can introduce paranoia in some people and worse:

 

http://www.dailymail...-delusions.html

 

From today's newspaper.

 

Those same things can be said for a lot of substances that are currently legal. Also, that article is a bit dramatic for my taste.

 

And not forgetting that drug driving is at least as bad as drunk driving.

 

I think if you compared the difference between a regular marijuana user and a drunk you would see that drunk driving is much worse.

 

 

Most of these articles only relate to a small percentage of people, again the same can be shown for many legal substances.

 

However you haven't looked at the bigger picture of what harm the current drug laws have caused to the world society. By making drugs illegal you directly make billions of dollars available to the criminals, who can set up operations in places we can't control. When you create a drug culture, you create a class of dealers that want to increase their business and they do so by starting the very young along that path. Along with the drug culture you have to spend more on police, legal personnel, correctional facilities and free medical services to drug users that can't pay.

 

It's a vicious cycle that's getting worse, not better, because of the current laws. I like to say when your doing something that is not working, quit doing it. We need a plan that stops paying the bad guys. When you take away the money and start programs to deal with the current crop of addicts, the problem will get a lot better than it is now. No matter how much people want to resist that idea. We do have a good example to work with, prohibition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest MacPhee

Criminals are very annoying to law-abiding citizens. Most of us citizens are happy to obey the law. Because we find that a society ruled by law is nice. Much nicer than one where criminals go around, robbing our houses, attacking us, swindling us out of our money, and behaving in many other kinds of nasty ways.

 

Why do criminals do these nasty things? It must be because they've got something wrong with their genes. They've got bad genes, which make them do bad things, and make them unfit to be part of a civilised society. So to keep them away from us, we good citizens lock them up in prison.

 

The prison has two purposes:

 

1. To stop criminals harming us

2. To stop criminals reproducing and transmitting their criminal genes to future generations.

 

Would that be a fair summary of what the prison system is actually for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminals are very annoying to law-abiding citizens. Most of us citizens are happy to obey the law. Because we find that a society ruled by law is nice. Much nicer than one where criminals go around, robbing our houses, attacking us, swindling us out of our money, and behaving in many other kinds of nasty ways.

 

Why do criminals do these nasty things? It must be because they've got something wrong with their genes. They've got bad genes, which make them do bad things, and make them unfit to be part of a civilised society. So to keep them away from us, we good citizens lock them up in prison.

 

The prison has two purposes:

 

1. To stop criminals harming us

2. To stop criminals reproducing and transmitting their criminal genes to future generations.

 

Would that be a fair summary of what the prison system is actually for?

 

do you have any studies or references that support your claim that genetics are responsible for criminal behavior? no; of course you don't.

 

rather than start with a clincal study, here is an overview paper laying out the current state of research in this field. :read:

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Criminal Behavior

Criminal behavior has always been a focus for psychologists due to the age old debate between nature and nurture. Is it the responsibility of an individual's genetic makeup that makes them a criminal or is it the environment in which they are raised that determines their outcome? Research has been conducted regarding this debate which has resulted in a conclusion that both genes and environment do play a role in the criminality of an individual. This evidence has been generated from a number of twin, family, and adoption studies as well as laboratory experiments. Furthermore, the research has stated that it is more often an interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior. Having a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior does not determine the actions of an individual, but if they are exposed to the right environment, then their chances are greater for engaging in criminal or anti-social behavior. Therefore, this paper will examine the different functions that genetics and the environment play in the criminal behavior of individuals.

...

 

as to prison prohibitng reproduction, it is a ridiculous thought. it ignores that someone may have children before incarceration, as well as ongoing sex after incarceration whether authorized or nay. therefore, we should sterilize inmates and euthanize their children. that'll fix things. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminals are very annoying to law-abiding citizens. Most of us citizens are happy to obey the law. Because we find that a society ruled by law is nice. Much nicer than one where criminals go around, robbing our houses, attacking us, swindling us out of our money, and behaving in many other kinds of nasty ways.

 

Why do criminals do these nasty things? It must be because they've got something wrong with their genes. They've got bad genes, which make them do bad things, and make them unfit to be part of a civilized society. So to keep them away from us, we good citizens lock them up in prison.

 

The prison has two purposes:

 

1. To stop criminals harming us

2. To stop criminals reproducing and transmitting their criminal genes to future generations.

 

Would that be a fair summary of what the prison system is actually for?

 

Hi MacPhee

 

I tend to agree with some of what you said, like

1. To stop criminals harming us
and that's a biggie. But part of the problem is that many people that wouldn't think of hurting anybody are also classed as criminal, and they are housed with the real criminals (those that do hurt others). Maybe we should rethink that strategy?

 

However, I don't see anything we are doing that would

2. To stop criminals reproducing and transmitting their criminal genes to future generations.
Many criminals do a lot of breeding in between periods of incarceration. Also, I'm not very convinced that most criminal activity has a genetic connection. Many people tend to be opportunistic and it often only takes one bad choice to start a criminal career in an otherwise normal person. At the other end of the spectrum, people that grow up economically disadvantaged just plain have a hard life with less than perfect role models to help them get a good start in life. Finding ways to reduce the disadvantaged group would be a big plus.

 

The only real purpose our prison system serves, is to remove criminals from society (and that's a very good thing), however it should do more to ensure criminals that have served their time become productive citizens rather than recycled through the system again and again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think most behavior is learned

 

for instance, if you were never tought how to read, you wouldn't know what to do

 

as far as genetics goes, you know, that is just a horrible way of thinking, i would state how i really feel about that

along with supporting statements, but i refrain

 

 

 

i think if the years of;

 

war , slavery, monarchy control, religios beliefs

 

 

have tought the people of the world how to act

now, in the nuclear era, we can teach and learn a new way

 

so as far as that goes,

 

rehabilitation is an interesting term

 

re- ( to do again )

 

habilitation- habituate

 

which is what i think jail does sometimes

 

( get the duality )

 

i think it should be de-habituate

 

i think anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it that allows someone to hurt others as a way of life?

I think the answer to this question is tautologically simple: what allows someone to hurt others is the absence of what prevents someone from hurting others.

 

What, precisely, this trait is, is less simple, but I’m pretty confident it’s empathy, the ability to imagine how others will feel, (especially as a consequence of your actions), and relate those feelings to your own. I tend to think of empathy as a brain-hardwired implementation of the Silver Rule.

 

Though the name psychologists use and detailed theories about the abnormal lack of empathy have changed many times since the start of psychology as a scientific discipline, that such a disorder exists, and correlates strongly with violent criminal behavior, has long been well-accepted. The best recognized term for it is psychopathy.

 

It's hard to believe it's just a simple learned behavior.

The mainstream consensus is that psychopathy can’t be learned or unlearned, unless possibly at a very early age.

 

However, it’s well known that people with normal empathic ability can be trained to hurt others, or not object to others being hurt. Such training is given to soldiers with the intention that it allow them to overcome their normal empathic aversion to hurting others only in appropriate circumstances, such as combat.

 

It’s good for society that we identify and prevent this kind of training from being done in ways that allow non-psychopaths to override their empathy to engage in violent criminal behavior. Gangs, prisons, and some parents, I think, are likely source of this training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the answer to this question is tautologically simple: what allows someone to hurt others is the absence of what prevents someone from hurting others.

 

What, precisely, this trait is, is less simple, but I’m pretty confident it’s empathy, the ability to imagine how others will feel, (especially as a consequence of your actions), and relate those feelings to your own. I tend to think of empathy as a brain-hardwired implementation of the Silver Rule.

 

Though the name psychologists use and detailed theories about the abnormal lack of empathy have changed many times since the start of psychology as a scientific discipline, that such a disorder exists, and correlates strongly with violent criminal behavior, has long been well-accepted. The best recognized term for it is psychopathy.

 

The mainstream consensus is that psychopathy can’t be learned or unlearned, unless possibly at a very early age.

 

I somewhat feel sociopaths are born that way or at least with a strong disposition in that direction. Then depending on their upbringing and environment they can become psychopaths or narcissistic. From everything I've read it's very hard to tell or diagnose these personality disorders in preteens and there is virtually no chance of a cure. The prison system by default has a higher population of personality disorders than the general population outside of prison. If they can't be cured or fixed what's the point of ever letting them back into a society they won't ever become productive citizens in?

 

However, it’s well known that people with normal empathic ability can be trained to hurt others, or not object to others being hurt. Such training is given to soldiers with the intention that it allow them to overcome their normal empathic aversion to hurting others only in appropriate circumstances, such as combat.

 

It’s good for society that we identify and prevent this kind of training from being done in ways that allow non-psychopaths to override their empathy to engage in violent criminal behavior. Gangs, prisons, and some parents, I think, are likely source of this training.

 

I've heard of a lot of cases where these trained solders find it very hard to fit back into main stream society, but I think they actually do have a chance to get cured with the right treatment. Who's fault is it when they don't get the right treatment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...