What are the effects of seperating ethnicities in prison?

[InfiniteNow]

Per another thread, I felt it best to start this one on it's own.

 

 

What are the effects of seperating people in prison by race ethnicity?

 

Is this bad?

Good?

Both?

Why do it?

Why not do it?

 

 

Fire away.

 

Cheers. :hihi:

[J.B]

Per another thread, I felt it best to start this one on it's own.

 

 

What are the effects of seperating people in prison by race? Is this bad? Good? Both? Why do it? Why not do it?

 

 

Fire away. Cheers. :hihi:

I think it is a choice people should be free to have.

 

In prison people are forced to be with each other, socity's everywhere have showed that the majority of people prefer to be with other's as themselves, it's only natural.

 

In situation's or laws that have forced people of different races to be together, racial riots seem to be the final outcome.

 

In Los Angeles for the last three months the races of hispanics and blacks have been separated from each other, because of the many violent attacks and hate for each others race.

 

Is it racist to keep them apart, or would it be more racist to force them to be together?

[Drip Curl Magic]

most of those guys, we are better off without. Let them kill eachother.

 

Or not. I really don't care, either way.

[InfiniteNow]

There's an inherent fallacy in the concept of "us" and "them," especially when applied to the color of one's skin. While we, as a society, experience it all of the time, it's roots are deeply ignorant and hateful. IMHO, of course.

[InfiniteNow]

Just realized I should have said "ethnicities." Going to change that. Cheers.

[Queso]

most of those guys, we are better off without. Let them kill eachother.

 

Or not. I really don't care, either way.

 

most of those guys actually just sold drugs.

[infamous]

most of those guys, we are better off without. Let them kill eachother.

 

Or not. I really don't care, either way.

Maybe we all should consider those which have found themselves there unjustly. Or maybe we could try imagining ourselves in the same situation, would we still feel the same way?

[Wondering]

Even though if different types of people who are forced to be together may fight, they wouldn't be able to learn about each other or learn that its really not worth it to judge each other if they were seperated. I think that seperating people based on their race is terrible anywhere. Besides, people of the same race hate each other too.

[Boerseun]

I think it is a choice people should be free to have.

Criminals have shown that they don't have respect for the law, the law being the written-down version of civilization. In my opinion, they have given up the right to have choices in this regard.

In prison people are forced to be with each other, socity's everywhere have showed that the majority of people prefer to be with other's as themselves, it's only natural.

I don't think they were forced to be anywhere. Commiting the crime in the first place was a conscious decision, with them being well aware of the consequences. People commiting crimes outside of their free will normally gets sent to mental institutions.

In situation's or laws that have forced people of different races to be together, racial riots seem to be the final outcome.

True. If it's cheaper in the long run to seperate them, let's do so - by all means. Whether it's racist or not, prison shouldn't be a mirror image of society, seeing as the vast majority of civilians aren't killers, drug-pushers, thieves, robbers, hijackers, fraudsters or law-breakers in general. I think in a prison situation, we should look at the cheapest option of removing these people out of society for however long their sentences might be. If it's cheaper having them slug it out in race riots, let them do so.

In Los Angeles for the last three months the races of hispanics and blacks have been separated from each other, because of the many violent attacks and hate for each others race.

Well there we go.

Is it racist to keep them apart, or would it be more racist to force them to be together?

I guess it would be racist, and forcing them to live together in a 'quota' system, having at least (in the US's case) three blacks and one hispanic for every six whites per cell-block, might be an uneccesarily expensive and cosmetic solution to solve a problem that exists only in the inmates (and a few human-rights lawyers') minds.

 

Take them out of society for as long as the judge said, and do it as cheaply as possible.

[ughaibu]

I would say the idea of "the law being the written-down version of civilization" is nonsense, and I would say that anybody who respects all law simply because it is law has already given up all their rights.

Law is no more a definer of morality or civilisation, than is religion. The primary social function of law is to provide protection and recompense for damages to those who have, or have had, problems defending themselves. However, in practice, a great deal of law doesn't concern such matters and the damages are inflicted by the agents of the law themselves. For example, in the UK there are laws relating to the relations of bicycles with motor vehicles, that endanger the lives of cyclists. On one occasion when the police stopped me for breaking such a law they advised me to be careful, as during that period magistrates were handing out stiffer fines for cycling "crime" than they were for house breaking. I wouldn't dream of obeying a law that endangers my life unless the threat implied by the standard penalty for contravening that law considerably exceeded the dangers forced on me by obeying that law. For sure my cycling habits aren't immoral, antisocial or uncivilised. Certainly one needs to respect the law and factor the risks it creates into one's decision making but under no circumstances would I blindly obey the law as an independent entity.

[Boerseun]

Well, ughaibu, what can I say?

 

You seem to be confusing criminal and civil law.

 

Apart from other things, civil law defines due process, one of the central pillars civilization is resting upon. Government passes laws that would (in general) benefit the majority of the people. The laws are there to protect you. If you don't dig any specific law, vote for the other guy.

 

If everybody argued the same you did, we would live in a world where no laws are respected, and civilization would go down the drain. The two are interlinked, and married so intimately that it could very well be said that the Law is civilization writ large. The Hard Copy of civilization, if you like.

 

The Law isn't a store-shelf item where you get to pick and choose which laws to obey.

 

There's a concept called 'loyal resistance', where you get to protest specific laws, whilst respecting them at the same time. That is the key to legal progression, and the evolution of civilization.

[ughaibu]

The distinction that is important for me isn't one of civil versus criminal law but one of law which reacts and law which imposes. I dont think law which attempts to control behaviour is a necessity of civilisation or anything else. It's not difficult to think of laws that might be introduced for the general good but with which I suspect you would refuse to comply, for example, your government might tell you that due to an acute problem matching food supply with population, all parents are required to eat their oldest child, failure to comply will result in the body of the heavier parent being fed to childless couples. No matter the extreme nature of the example, the principle of obeying impositional laws simply because they are laws, applies. Maybe you would in any case accept the dictates of such a law. If there are reactive laws for cases of damage in place, there is no need for impositional laws, in my opinion, and as such I agree with you that "the Law isn't a store-shelf item where you get to pick and choose which laws to obey", I obey them by coincidence or by being coerced, not by choice.

Apart from that, I guess we have a basic philosophical disagreement on the role and relevence of law in civilised societies, not the subject of this thread.