102. wonkers2 - April 22, 1999 - 10:03 PM PT
Seems to me it's inconsistent for Catholics, based on their religion, to oppose abortion and support capital punishment. And it's even more inconsistent to bray continually about "baby killing" of newly conceived life and show little or no concern about that baby once it is born.
103. JJBiener - April 22, 1999 - 10:12 PM PT
Wonkers - Why is it so difficult for you to understand that they are distinguishing between the guilty and the innocent? Catholics and others can justify CP in the Bible. They can't justify the killing of an innocent fetus.
I still dispute your claim that most people, Catholic or otherwise, who are pro-life also "show little or no concern about that baby once it is born."
104. incognito - April 23, 1999 - 8:15 AM PT
I find Catholics who hold to both their church's teachings against abortion and capital punishment to be the most consistent in their views. The Pope calls cultures like our own the "culture of death" or some such thing and I think he is dead on.
But I also see how people can distinguish between aborting a human being that has done nothing wrong versus a murderer or serial rapist who has been proven to be a threat to society. I don't see a 'contradiction' in someone being against abortion and for CP.
But I think the position that holds ALL forms of human life to be precious and worth protecting to be the most consistent.
105. wonkers2 - April 23, 1999 - 7:55 PM PT
JJ, I agree that a distinction can be made between innocent life and candidates for capital punishment. However, the Catholic church doesn't make that distinction. I agree with incognito's post just above on the issue. Also, I accept your observation that not all who oppose abortion also oppose sex education, pre-natal and post natal care etc. I plead guilty to hyperbole and over-generalization. I must remember Thomas Aquinas (or was it Augustine?) who said "Never deny. Seldom affirm. Always distinguish."
106. JJBiener - April 25, 1999 - 8:56 PM PT
Wonkers - I would like to acknowledge #105. Few posts in the Fray rise to that level. More's the pity.
107. cartman69 - April 26, 1999 - 12:59 AM PT
Although a good portion of my family is Catholic, I personally am pro-choice and pro-CP, and I find that to be a morally consistent position. As far as incognito's quote that the Pope calls us the "culture of death", well, he's right. Let's remember though, the Pope also travels regularly to some of the most overpopulated, blighted places on the face of the planet, and exhorts the adoring throngs to NEVER use birth control. God does not want them to use rubbers! He apparently would prefer that His people be consigned to a life of poverty, deprivation, and short-lived misery.
Now THAT'S concern for human life, in all its wretched glory.
Staying on topic, I agree with Jade's earlier assertion that if we allow prisoners to be treated like animals, they will act like animals. Many, if not a great majority, of our prisoners can be rehabilitated, if only we were concerned about that. But it seems that we just want them warehoused, with nary a concern about how much worse they'll be when they return to society.
Maybe the most disturbing (and potentially dangerous) trend in corrections is allowing private corporations to build and operate prisons. This is inexcusable laziness on the part of the citizenry, to even allow such a thing. There is absolutely no reason a private company should have such ultimate control over the health and well-being of people, as they are inevitably prone to cut every single possible corner.
Also, privately-operated prisons are obviously open to a wide range of abuses, from using prisoners as slave labor to partners or subsidiaries of the prison company, to lobbyists from the prison company shilling the passage of more laws and/or longer sentencing. All in the name of the public welfare, of course.
All in all, it's a very dangerous trend, with no redeeming features, and it's disturbing that there's been virtually no outcry over it.
108. wonkers2 - April 29, 1999 - 4:47 AM PT
That's right, once the private prisons are there, then come the pressures to keep them full and build more and fill them.
109. BobaFett - April 29, 1999 - 7:13 PM PT
They're RIPping this thread?
WHY, IN GOD'S NAME, WHY??!!??!?!?!?!
110. cartman69 - April 29, 1999 - 7:19 PM PT
Boba:
The Freemasons told 'em to shut it down, 'cause I dissed the Pope.
It's a conspiracy, I tell ya.
But seriously, I don't think anyone really bothers to worry about the conditions of life in prison, unless they or someone they care about ends up there. Which, at the rate things are going, will eventually include just about everyone.
111. BobaFett - April 29, 1999 - 7:26 PM PT
Cartman:
I'm just kidding. I told everyone that this was a lame thread idea when Niner proposed it and then kept trumpeting it.
112. cartman69 - April 29, 1999 - 7:37 PM PT
Boba:
I know you're kidding. God, do I look *that* dense?
Actually, this thread lasted longer than I figured it would. I think it's an important topic, but you can kinda tell when a topic is going to be a non-starter. I was hoping someone would be moved to action by my Pope-baiting, but when you get right down to it, I'm right about that.
For what it's worth, I'm dead serious when I say that I think that corporate-owned prisons are the absolute worst idea in corrections. There will be some serious conflict-of-interest issues arising from it, as well as many constitutionally troublesome situations.
113. BobaFett - April 29, 1999 - 7:39 PM PT
Cartman:
"For what it's worth, I'm dead serious when I say that I think that corporate-owned prisons are the absolute worst idea in corrections. "
No offense, but who cares? Fuck 'em.
114. cartman69 - April 29, 1999 - 7:57 PM PT
Boba:
Well, anyone who is concerned about recidivism ought to care. Granted, some repeat offenders are simply very bad people, but some acquire this behavior after years of living in an environment that essentially demands that one become hard and brutal just to survive. Not everyone in prison is a vicious rapist or murderer. There's plenty of non-violent thieves and drug offenders too, and it benefits society to make sure that these people return to society wanting to rebuild their lives and be productive citizens.
I think that goal is much easier to attain when prisoners don't have to worry about being shot by guards for sport, or getting butt-fucked by the Aryan Brotherhood.
Again, maybe it's easier to relate to when you know people who've actually been in there.
115. aldavis - April 29, 1999 - 8:27 PM PT
Johnathan Swift had a different slant on crime and punishment than we or his society hold/held to. He reserved the harshest punishments for those who took advantage of a higher position. Swift would have hanged Keating. Crimes of passion, he was much easier on; any person might kill one person and never harm another human.
The American Justice system is such a mess that not even Swift could find words to satirize it.
116. BobaFett - April 29, 1999 - 8:29 PM PT
"There's plenty of non-violent thieves and drug offenders too"
So fucking what? Do a man's crime, do a man's time. And these people are just as hard-core recidivist as murderers.
117. cartman69 - April 29, 1999 - 9:00 PM PT
Boba:
"Do a man's crime, do a man's time."
You been watching "Baretta" again? Or is that "Starsky & Hutch"?
Many people who wind up in prison for fairly mediocre crimes (such as theft or drug possession) don't give a fuck by the time they get out. Because prison life has put them in the "nothing to lose" mode. So they end up committing serious, violent crimes.
Think about it for two seconds, Boba. Say you're a non-violent, easygoing guy, and you get popped for a drug offense. The judge, thanks to the magic of mandatory sentencing, gives you 4 to 6 in the fun house. So for the next 4 to 6 years, you, mild-mannered BobaFett, get to spend every waking moment trying to stay one step ahead of everyone else.
You have to worry about guards deciding to take their frustrations out on you. You have to worry about looking at someone the "wrong" way, and getting shanked. You have to worry about your celly punking you out to one of the prison gangs for a carton of smokes. If any of those things happened to you, chances are you wouldn't be very mild-mannered when you got out, now would you?
And even if none of those things happened, chances are you would at least see or encounter some shit that would harden you. All that affects what prisoners do upon their eventual return to society.
Look, I'm not saying that prisons should be country clubs, or even comfortable. What I am saying is that prisoners, regardless of their crime, should not have to live with the constant threat of physical violence. It's just going to make them that much worse when they get out.
118. BobaFett - April 29, 1999 - 9:06 PM PT
Cartman:
Yes, but we do not cut thieves' hands off, right? So what CAN we do but lock them up?
Yes, Prisons are the "Graduate Schools of Advanced Criminality." But you can't NOT throw someone in jail just because prison will turn them into a worse fuck.
Let me let you in on a little secret: Criminals are fairly egotistical people who have decided that they are entitled to more money than their brains and talents would otherwise command. That's why they don't work for "chump change" as the manager of a supermarket.
Once you have a felony conviction, your chances of making a decent amount of money are all but shot.
So what is an ex-con to do? Why, continue breaking the law, of course.
They will be recidivist whether we teach them how to type or whatever. Criminals had their best chance to avoid a life of crime when they were young-- and they passed it up. They cannot be reformed and there's no use trying.
119. cartman69 - April 29, 1999 - 9:42 PM PT
Boba:
"But you can't NOT throw someone in jail just because prison will turn them into a worse fuck."
Come on, don't be ridiculous. I'd never even consider suggesting that we just don't throw people in prison at all. That's just stupid.
All I'm saying is that if there were a concerted effort to making prisons less violent and dangerous to their temporary inhabitants, they'd stand a far better chance to become productive members of society when they get out. This is obviously far cheaper, and morally better to boot, than just saying "fuck 'em all" and assuming that we'll have to pay to warehouse them off & on for the rest of their lives.
Certainly some criminals cannot be reformed -- as the prophet John Cougar Mellencamp once wisely said, "Well some people, ain't no damn good". But many can be and are reformed. I think their numbers would be greater if we devoted just a token amount of effort to rehabilitate them.
Aside from sheer egotism, most crime is also based on two intertwined problems -- ignorance (something like 70% of all prisoners are illiterate) and lack of economic opportunity. Many of these people can generally be rehabilitated just by teaching them how to read, and letting them acquire some job skills.
Also (and this is something you & I have gone round & round on before), there is absolutely no reason non-violent drug offenders should be locked up with violent prisoners, where they'll merely keep selling drugs inside, and acquire more criminal skills. If we must keep up this pointless sham of a War on Some Drugs, then house these people with the Charles Keatings of the prison system.
It makes no sense that a scumbag piece of shit like Keating does 5 years in a country club, after the millions of $ he ripped off, and the lives he's ruined, and a small-time dope grower gets 10+ years in San Quentin or Folsom. That's fucking insane.
120. BobaFett - April 29, 1999 - 9:50 PM PT
Cartman:
I have no particular urge to put drug *possessors* in anything other than minimum security (so long as it's not a big quantity of drugs, as a dealer would have).
You obviously have a lot of sympathy for drug-convicts. I don't. Maybe you know someone who went to jail for it. I don't (although there is someone close to me who got ARRESTED for dealing pot, but I don't know how the fuck that all worked out; I think he might have informed to get out of it, but he's very cagey with the details).
Do I think drugs are terribly dangerous? Not *terribly* dangerous. But a nuisance nonetheless.
I can't feel too much sympathy for people who get caught with an amount of drugs which exposes them to the man-min sentences. These people KNOW the drug laws. It's fucking easy as hell to avoid being nailed on a drug charge: Don't use drugs. It's even EASIER to avoid the man-min sentences: NEVER, NEVER, have or be near an amount of drugs which will expose you to a man-min sentence.
So if you get caught-- guess what? You're probably a dealer.
121. cartman69 - April 29, 1999 - 10:22 PM PT
"...there is someone close to me who got ARRESTED for dealing pot, but I don't know how the fuck that all worked out; I think he might have informed to get out of it..."
Gee. You think so? That's the other great thing about the War on Some Drugs -- some folks get their lives ruined, others simply get turned into rats. Only things lower than rats are child molesters and used-car salesmen.
It's not that I have a lot of "sympathy" for drug convicts. I just don't understand what the ridiculous laws/sentences are supposed to accomplish. You're certainly not helping the perp kick his habit, because drugs are EASIER to get in prison. As far as keeping society safe, well, that's such total horseshit, I'm amazed anyone seriously believes it anymore.
I agree that drugs are a nuisance. I've never seen any real horror stories of people absolutely ruining their lives for drugs though, except for one former roommate who was hopelessly addicted to pot. But I've seen far more lives drastically affected by alcohol, and even tobacco.
Look, you want to get rid of drug dealers, and thin out the ranks of prisoners at the same time? Legalize it, tax it, regulate it. No more dealers. Much less drug-related crime. Fewer prisoners.
Will some people die? Yep, but they're gonna die anyway. Some people are going to experiment, others have enough common sense to leave all that shit alone. As long as they nuke their brains at home, and don't bother anyone, who cares?
122. cartman69 - April 29, 1999 - 10:22 PM PT
(cont.)
"So if you get caught-- guess what? You're probably a dealer."
Yet another of the manifold follies of the War on Some Drugs -- you're guilty until presumed innocent. Your property can be seized and auctioned BEFORE you even go to trial. Your door can be kicked down without a search warrant, if you're a suspect (or even happen to be a "known associate" of one). Forget that it's someone else's ox being gored, doesn't that bother you even a little?
Even if it worked in the first place, the loss of constitutional rights, as well as the fundamental right to abuse your body as you damn well please, is too high a price to pay to try to child-proof America.
123. BobaFett - April 29, 1999 - 10:33 PM PT
"Look, you want to get rid of drug dealers, and thin out the ranks of prisoners at the same time? Legalize it, tax it, regulate it. No more dealers. Much less drug-related crime. Fewer prisoners."
Silly. This is NEVER going to happen, so stop yapping about it. And while I used to think this was a good idea, I no longer do. I don't believe the American public is mature enough to handle legalization.
And it's absurd to even discuss it anyway.
As for "probably being a dealer"--
if you KNOW that having, say, one ounce of cocaine (or whatever the amount is) will expose you to man-min sentences, and yet you carry that much coke on you anyway--
Guess what? You probably ARE a dealer. There's SOME reason you've decided to expose yourself to what you know is an incredibly punishing criminal liability. My guess is: You're dealing, so of course you MUST carry that much coke.
124. cartman69 - April 29, 1999 - 10:52 PM PT
"I don't believe the American public is mature enough to handle legalization."
The "American public" (as if it were monolithic in form) is not mature enough to handle a great many things. That's immaterial anyway. Bad policy is easy to spot, when it caters to the absolute lowest common denominator. Most people have enough intelligence to determine what they can and can't handle. The ones that aren't sharp enough to know that heroin's bad for them -- well, that's what thinning the herd is all about.
It may be absurd to discuss legalizing drugs, but you have to keep in mind that the War on Some Drugs is one of the two major factors in the steady increase in our prison population (the other being 3-strikes laws). And the premises behind the War on Some Drugs are inherently faulty all the way around, and are largely unconstitutional to boot. It is indisputable that the current policy does not work, and is tremendously costly, both in terms of lives ruined and tax dollars spent to warehouse these "criminals".
Even though a bad law may not affect one directly, one shouldn't just accept it anyway. That's a dangerously apathetic position to hold.
I'll drop the War on Some Drugs spiel, but I want you to consider something: There are no recorded deaths from the physiological effects of smoking pot. Ever. Anywhere. On the other hand, from its release to the public in April 1998 to the end of that year, there were 132 deaths recorded due to heart and blood problems caused by Viagra.
You tell me who the "real criminals" and "dope pushers" are. It has nothing to do with protecting the public. If dope growers had lobbyists, pols would be only to happy to pimp their shit too.
125. BobaFett - April 29, 1999 - 11:56 PM PT
"The ones that aren't sharp enough to know that heroin's bad for them -- well, that's what thinning the herd is all about."
Ah. I see. Throwing heroin dealers in jail is just too cruel, but it's okay to let people die of heroin overdoses. Shit, they were stupid, they had it coming.
"It may be absurd to discuss legalizing drugs, but you have to keep in mind that the War on Some Drugs is one of the two major factors in the steady increase in our prison population (the other being 3-strikes laws)."
I'm not against our increasing prison population. Why are you against it?
"And the premises behind the War on Some Drugs are inherently faulty all the way around, and are largely unconstitutional to boot."
Unconstitutional? I've heard this claimed sooo many times.
"It is indisputable that the current policy does not work, and is tremendously costly, both in terms of lives ruined and tax dollars spent to warehouse these "criminals"."
It does "work." It does approximately what it is intended to accomplish: It punishes those who use drugs. Not all of them, of course, just like gambling laws don't punish all illegal bettors.
"I'll drop the War on Some Drugs spiel, but I want you to consider something: There are no recorded deaths from the physiological effects of smoking pot. Ever."
Maybe not. But I've known people who were definitely STUPID due to pot.
If I were King, would I legalize pot? Maybe. I could give a shit about it either way. But, on the other hand, I can't manage an enormous amount of sympathy for those who deal in contraband. After all, if pot were legal, pot dealers would deal in heroin, because they couldn't make a profit off pot!
They're doing it for the money . They're taking their chances.
126. vonKreedon - April 30, 1999 - 9:17 AM PT
Boba - The point that Cart was originally making about drug jailings is that taking non-violent victimless criminals and placing them in the same institutions with violent victimizers tends to turn them into violent victimizers. That's all, not that they shouldn't be convicted. This makes a lot of sense to me, that sense we are subsidizing the prison industry we should be much smarter about it. That we should place different classes of criminals in different facilities. Non-violent/victimless in one, sexual offenders in another, other violent victimizers in yet another. We would have a chance at having an impact on the recidivism rate with this penal structure.
I'm personally a big fan of electronic detention for many non-violent victimless offenders.
127. ChristinO - April 30, 1999 - 9:45 AM PT
Nah, let's just fucking shoot them all.
Park in a red zone?
POW!
Too bad, you knew better. Everybody knows that big violent criminals start small. Might as well nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand. You chose to break the law. You can't be rehabilitated. You're just a lousy punk and a waste of skin.
If we start imposing the maximum punishment for the smallest infringement then our country will finally shape up and be a place where decent God-fearing citizens can hold their heads up. We'll all be safe and rich and happy.
Man, I think I'm gonna firf.
128. Jenerator - April 30, 1999 - 12:19 PM PT
They do it in other countries, and their crime rates are waaaaaaay lower!
129. trouserPilot - April 30, 1999 - 12:36 PM PT
...Another Christian perspective.
130. davidtudor - April 30, 1999 - 1:19 PM PT
Jenerator would LOVE Singapore. So orderly. Dissension is definitely a no no. Red dresses are big there, too.
131. arkymalarky - April 30, 1999 - 3:28 PM PT
They don't do it in Europe and their violent crime rates are way lower.
132. jroth2 - April 30, 1999 - 10:49 PM PT
Boba,
You and your interlocutors are all in the last century. Biochemical research is identifying the imbalances which are highly correlated (in some cases proven causative) with criminal behavior. You might also want to get an fMRI on your next checkup to see if you, Boba, might not have the neurological structures implicated in violent behavior. Or perhaps you let off staem on these threads.
133. cartman69 - April 30, 1999 - 11:44 PM PT
Boba Message #125:
I have to give you a perfect grade for this post, because somehow you've managed to *completely* miss every point I'd been trying to make. Maybe it's because I got a bit bogged down in the War on Some Drugs part, but I believe that that is the single largest contributing factor to the overcrowding of our prisons. It's also the easiest to do something positive about.
So I'll simplify it here. The reason prison conditions are so bad is obvious: they're overcrowded and understaffed. And the staff at many of these facilities are underpaid, and like inner city cops, grow to think of their "clients" as subhuman after a time. And they act on it either directly (beating/shooting prisoners), or indirectly (taking bribes from prisoners to allow drugs to get into prisons, allowing gang members to attack/rape other prisoners).
Any way you look at it, it's not a good formula for rehabilitation. And like it or not, rehabilitation *must* be a part of this, because most of these people will eventually return to society. If someone has a chance to be reformed, it's a lot more likely to happen in a more safe and sane environment. The punishment aspect is only supposed to encompass incarceration, believe it or not.
Maybe it's your steady entertainment diet of comic books and lame Schwarzenegger flicks that makes you see this polarized good guys/bad guys dichotomy in people. Most all of us are a little bit of both; very few people are completely (or even mostly) "evil" or "good". But you can put a saint in San Quentin, and chances are that they'll come out one hell of a lot harder and angrier, from shit they really should not have to face.
134. cartman69 - April 30, 1999 - 11:46 PM PT
(cont.)
Personally, I don't much worry about the odds of rehabilitating violent criminals, such as killers or sex offenders. Usually, by the time they get to that point, it's a done deal, there's not a lot you can do with them. But prisons have become so overcrowded, thanks to mandatory sentencing, that non-violent criminals are stacked up in there right along with the truly hard fuckers, that have nothing to lose, and don't care how many they take down with them.
"[Drug laws] unconstitutional? I've heard this claimed sooo many times."
That's because it's true! Jesus H. Christ, you're a fuckin' lawyer, you know I'm right! The 4th Amendment doesn't even exist anymore in drug cases, mandatory sentencing frequently amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, the prosecution is generally allowed to use tainted testimony from rats who will say anything to save their own worthless hides, and property can be confiscated and auctioned BEFORE THE DEFENDANT EVEN GOES TO TRIAL!!! Does the phrase "due fucking process" mean anything to you?
"...if pot were legal, pot dealers would deal in heroin, because they couldn't make a profit off pot!"
Ever been to Amsterdam?
135. BobaFett - April 30, 1999 - 11:51 PM PT
133. cartman69 - April 30, 1999 - 11:44 PM PT
Boba Message #125:
"I have to give you a perfect grade for this post, because somehow you've managed to *completely* miss every point I'd been trying to make."
No, I dealt with the digressions you brought up along the way. You brought these up as supporting evidence for your larger point. Therefore, one way to argue with you is to quibble with your supporting evidence. Which I did.
"So I'll simplify it here. The reason prison conditions are so bad is obvious: they're overcrowded and understaffed."
Yes, well, when governments economize, they generally tend to do it at places like prisons rather than Air-Traffic Controllers and the military. It will always be this way, and it should be this way. In a perfect world with unlimited resources, of course, you'd be right. But we do not have unlimited resources, and common sense says you cut from prisoner comfort before you cut from student loans and schools.
"And the staff at many of these facilities are underpaid, and like inner city cops, grow to think of their "clients" as subhuman after a time."
In some ways they are subhuman.
"And they act on it either directly (beating/shooting prisoners), or indirectly (taking bribes from prisoners to allow drugs to get into prisons, allowing gang members to attack/rape other prisoners)."
I have no idea why you keep bringing up "shooting prisoners." Obviously you've heard of some case where this has happened, but I doubt you've heard of many more.
"Any way you look at it, it's not a good formula for rehabilitation. And like it or not, rehabilitation *must* be a part of this, because most of these people will eventually return to society."
In a perfect world, sure, we could spend oodles on rehabilitation. Trouble is, we don't have unlimited resources. And since the odds of rehabil
136. BobaFett - April 30, 1999 - 11:53 PM PT
rehabilitation are remote, I say kudos to my government for not pissing my tax money down the toilet.
"Maybe it's your steady entertainment diet of comic books and lame Schwarzenegger flicks that makes you see this polarized good guys/bad guys dichotomy in people. Most all of us are a little bit of both; very few people are completely (or even mostly) "evil" or "good"."
This is positively absurd.
"But you can put a saint in San Quentin, and chances are that they'll come out one hell of a lot harder and angrier, from shit they really should not have to face."
Agreed. It's a tough world. It's a tougher world in prison. There are more important problems.
137. cartman69 - May 1, 1999 - 12:01 AM PT
Boba:
This is the most recent CA prison shooting investigation; there was another last year at Folsom.
138. cartman69 - May 1, 1999 - 12:07 AM PT
Read all about it, kids: the heartwarming tale of the "Booty Bandit"
139. cartman69 - May 1, 1999 - 12:24 AM PT
Can't trust them darned screws, can ya? The Further Misadventures of the "Booty Bandit"
Two things come to mind immediately after reading the above articles: 1) the guards aren't any better than the prisoners; 2) considering that kind of environment, it's a fucking miracle ANY prisoner gets out of these hellholes without going flat-out insane.
And of course, like every "law enforcement" union in the country, the CA Correctional Officers Association deems itself above the law it's supposed to uphold. THEY don't have to answer questions about members of their organization who are committing repeated, horrible felonies.
Say it again, Boba -- only *crooks* get caught. Right? All the bad guys are behind bars, not walking out in front of them.
A minor postscript -- to this date, not ONE of the CO's has even been tried as of this date. Their blessed union helped them brush it all under the rug, and they can count on an apathetic public to not give a rat's ass as to what happens to lowlife prison scumbags. After all, they got a good cornholin' comin' to him anyway, don't they? Shit, they're lucky we even agree to FEED them.
Who cares if guards are using prisoners as gladiators, or target practice? Who cares if the guards are bribing prisoners to rape each other? It's not like they're actual *people* or anything. You know, a guy gets bored and angry after dealing with those fucking subhumans all day, every day. It's not enough to just go home and beat the wife. A man's gotta let off some steam!
140. cartman69 - May 1, 1999 - 12:30 AM PT
Boba:
I overlooked this little gem the first time around. I couldn't let it go, though:
"In a perfect world, sure, we could spend oodles on rehabilitation. Trouble is, we don't have unlimited resources. And since the odds of
rehabilitation are remote, I say kudos to my government for not pissing my tax money down the toilet."
The gov't not pissing your tax money down the toilet??!?! Are you fucking kidding me? Since WHEN does the gov't NOT waste money every chance it gets? And since when has the gov't missed a chance to throw money at every crackpot cause that can afford a lobbyist?
OK, that does it, Boba -- you get a week in the hole with the Booty Bandit. I recommend you sit on your ass and keep your mouth shut; you just might survive.
141. BobaFett - May 1, 1999 - 12:45 AM PT
I meant, "I'm glad my government isn't pissing *more* of my money down the toilet for this particular boondoggle."
142. cartman69 - May 1, 1999 - 1:05 AM PT
Boba:
I kinda figured that that's what you meant in the first place. But the gov't pisses billions away every day on plenty of "boondoggles". How do you know rehabilitation is a boondoggle anyway? The prison system doesn't really even make token efforts at it any more; there's just too many people to warehouse at this point, and private prisons certainly wouldn't find rehabilitation to be cost-effective.
At any rate, your response is perfectly typical of the general public -- I post 3 different links that clearly illustrate a pattern of guard abuse, certainly at an absolutely nauseating level of criminality, and you just want to clarify what you meant by the gov't wasting your money. The CO union appreciates your apathy, Boba -- they couldn't stay employed without it.
Similarly, there's been virtually no public response to any of these stories, nor of the fact that many CA prisons now refuse to let journalists talk to any prisoners -- because they're afraid their wicked little game might actually see daylight. What could they possibly be worried about? That their sick, crooked system could get exposed to the public, who are forced to bankroll this shit?
143. cartman69 - May 2, 1999 - 2:01 AM PT
This article culled from a prison paper (as you'll note from the rather colorful narrative) profiles the trials and tribulations of a fine upstanding law-enforcement person getting away with murdering a subhuman.
144. cartman69 - May 2, 1999 - 2:06 AM PT
This site only has a couple of links, one of which is a somewhat breathless account by a prisoner's mother (who also operates the site). The links are compelling, though. The woman's mildly retarded son was placed in a regular facility, and almost immediately gang-raped. He was then placed BACK INTO THE SAME CELL-BLOCK, because prison officials wanted him to get info on gang activity for them. Naturally, he was again similarly abused.
In addition, the anti-psychosis medications the prisoner required were denied to him, and now, between the chemical imbalance, and repeated rape trauma, he's completely psychotic.
145. cartman69 - May 2, 1999 - 2:16 AM PT
I didn't get too far in this site. Some really horrific stuff here, but provides graphic reasons why it's impossible to expect prisoners to be able to re-adapt to society.
This excerpt is not too graphic, and explains the premise in a nutshell, as to why ex-cons have such a chip on their shoulder:
"It may be that the most serious cost of prison rape to society is that it takes non-violent offenders and turns them into people with a high potential for violence, full of rage -- and eager to take vengeance on the society which they hold responsible for their utter humiliation and loss of manhood. If they do not turn their frustrated rage against themselves -- I suspect that a majority of jail suicides are rape victims -- they may turn it on the world outside, perhaps becoming rapists themselves in a desperate attempt to 'regain their manhood'.
"Rape exists and will continue to exist in confinement institutions because it serves the interests of too many powerful elements of jail and prison societies, including the administration. Officials use it to divert prison aggression, destroy potential leaders, and intimidate prisoners into becoming informers (as in New Mexico); the Men at the top of the prisoner power structure benefit sexually, psychologically, and financially from the punks who are turned out by this process or the fear of it; and the rapists, initiators, and followers, themselves, who come in for a share of the action.
146. cartman69 - May 2, 1999 - 2:22 AM PT
(excerpt continued)
"The victims of rape, like most prisoners, leave confinement a good deal more 'antisocial' than when they enter it. The practice of rape is but one mechanism in a system that takes non-violent people and efficiently processes them into men who rape, rob, assault, and kill. It seems to be that 'society' must be self-destructive, an eager victim who maintains such institutions in order to punish itself for its own feelings of guilt over its exploitation of human beings. How otherwise could such institutions continue to exist?"
I accidentally "looped" my links in Message #143 and Message #144.
This is the article from #143
Here is the site from #144
147. cartman69 - May 2, 1999 - 3:07 AM PT
This site contains several links regarding how corporate-run correctional facilities, built with public money, use prisoners as labor, and the CORPORATION (rather than the state) keeps the profits.
Are taxpayers subsidizing a de facto corporate slave gulag? I think we are. And it's just getting started.
Over the past few days, I've thought more about and dug deeper into this subject than I would have liked. Because I think it's getting to be a big problem in this society, and as we pass ever more laws and demand ever higher sentences, we're going to see more & more of our friends, relatives, and neighbors incarcerated. It's in our best interest as a society that our prison population at least gets treated humanely. Insisting that they not be constantly exposed to the threat of murder or rape is not spoiling them.
What's almost as bad as the various forms of brutality some of these poor people have been inflicted with is the total apathy with which their stories are greeted, in the rare events their stories actually see light in the first place. There is never any public outcry about these things; many people in fact treat it as a joke, as if there was something intrinsically funny about guards stomping prisoners to death, or inmates being raped by a dozen or more people at a time. That absolute indifference and insensibility is shameful.
And in this increasingly bloodthirsty society, that is constantly demanding satisfaction and retribution for any and all slights, even "non-criminals" can end up becoming part of some ambitious prosecutor's quota, if they're in the wrong place at the wrong time.
148. ChristinO - May 4, 1999 - 12:26 PM PT
Cart,
Thanks for the links......sorta'. I haven't had a chance to get very in depth, but what I have seen is awful.
Until the post in this thread I didn't know that there were corporate owned/run prisons. Whose braniac idea was that? There is every incentive in the world for them to have substandard facilites, food, supervision, medical care and no reason at all for them to improve........well except for common decency or justice but what does that mean to a corporation?
The thing that hits hardest for me is how easy it is to get sucked into the system. For lack of $800 I nearly spent 10 days in the city jail for a traffic offence. At the time $800 was more money than I made in two months. I lucked out and was allowed to do work project, but even that was pretty dangerous. I was originally assigned to a crew that was primarily made up of repeat violent offenders---mostly male simply because the sheriff who assigned me was a woman and felt she needed to prove that she was tough.
149. cartman69 - May 4, 1999 - 4:35 PM PT
Christin:
"Thanks for the links......sorta'."
You know, that's exactly how I felt when I was digging up all those links and stories. The more I was finding out about privately-owned prisons, and about how various forms of brutality are *intentionally* used as a form of control, well, the more demoralized I felt about it.
Reading about your own brush with the law just confirms what I've felt about this all along -- that to a certain extent, it's a way to keep a thumb on people who aren't able to afford a good attorney to get out of trouble. From the frequently unconstitutional laws that are used to get people into jail, to the tactics used to break them once they're in there, much of it seems to be about control. Very little of it has to do with any real sense of justice, and virtually none of it is about rehabilitation.
Saddest of all, there's just a blanket assumption throughout society that everyone in jail is Very Bad, a Threat to their Way Of Life. That makes it much easier to dehumanize prisoners, so they don't have to think about the fact that many of them have to literally turn into animals just to stay alive. This is not a very productive attitude on society's part, imo.
Re: corporate owned prisons. This new penal phenomenon can be directly attributed to the fact that the growth of prison population is far outstripping states' abilities to construct new prisons. That, in turn, is attributable to the insane War on Some Drugs, as well as the public's insatiable appetite for 3-strikes laws (which I think are justifiable for violent criminals). Don't worry, Christin. You might not have heard much about them yet, but you will. It's a problem that's just beginning.
150. trouserPilot - May 5, 1999 - 4:23 PM PT
I actually liked "Boys Behind Bars 2" better than the original "Boys Behind Bars."