Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
there seems to be this bizarre attitude in this country this hard assed attitude towards things that goes against BASIC common EMPATHY that a forest dweller would naturally have.
Yes, you are correct that it is an American pathology--I'm sure prisoners are hated in other countries but not with the same self-righteous relish as they are here. The tv exploitation is bad enough--remember the commercials MSNBC ran a few years ago for their prison reality shows? At Christmas they advertised with the witty tags "season's beatings" and "you better watch out, you better not die." Hilarious, isn't it?
What it means, I'm afraid, is that common Americans are disgusting wretches and that we ought to make as much of a donation to the ACLU as we can afford.
I doubt too many other prisons are akin to a walk in the garden. Even in Germany.
The people in prison DID SOMETHING to merit being sent there. It is hard to sympathize too much with someone who broke the law, perhaps violently, knowing full well that prison was a likely outcome.
Yes prisons are unpleasant. We all know that. So if we all know it, then why would anyone be irresponsible enough to commit a crime and get sent there?
Instead of disdaining all of us who do not commit crimes, why don't you criticize the people who did commit crimes and are now being punished?
That is not the point. The problem is that prison inmates don't have full rights anymore. They cannot defend themselves against gangs of other inmates etc. The ones responsible for inmates, i.e. the state, has to make sure inmates are safe from each other. If they don't, it's negligence. Prisons are correctional facilities with a mission, not some giant trash cans where you simply throw people just because they are criminals. They are still humans and, whether we like it or not, some of them will get out again sooner or later. So everyone should be interested in a moral improvement of inmates, rather than the opposite.
Not to mention that there are huge differences between individual criminals, and the legal system does make its share of mistakes, even sending innocent people to prison occasionally.
Disdain all of us? Seems you didn't read carefully enough...
In my case, it's more indifference than it is sadism. A person who chooses to drive drunk clearly doesn't care about anyone other than himself (and maybe not even then) - so why should I care about him?
Because - as a supposed "human" - I assume that you are able to have some compassion for your fellow humans and fellow Americans.
How foolish of me to think that everyone is capable of having empathy. Thanks for reminding me.
That is not the point. The problem is that prison inmates don't have full rights anymore. They cannot defend themselves against gangs of other inmates etc. The ones responsible for inmates, i.e. the state, has to make sure inmates are safe from each other. If they don't, it's negligence. Prisons are correctional facilities with a mission, not some giant trash cans where you simply throw people just because they are criminals. They are still humans and, whether we like it or not, some of them will get out again sooner or later. So everyone should be interested in a moral improvement of inmates, rather than the opposite.
Not to mention that there are huge differences between individual criminals, and the legal system does make its share of mistakes, even sending innocent people to prison occasionally.
Disdain all of us? Seems you didn't read carefully enough...
Run for office , get elected then find out how many of your constituants want their money spent on prisnors. Tell us how that works out for ya.
That is not the point. The problem is that prison inmates don't have full rights anymore. They cannot defend themselves against gangs of other inmates etc. The ones responsible for inmates, i.e. the state, has to make sure inmates are safe from each other. If they don't, it's negligence. Prisons are correctional facilities with a mission, not some giant trash cans where you simply throw people just because they are criminals. They are still humans and, whether we like it or not, some of them will get out again sooner or later. So everyone should be interested in a moral improvement of inmates, rather than the opposite.
Not to mention that there are huge differences between individual criminals, and the legal system does make its share of mistakes, even sending innocent people to prison occasionally.
Disdain all of us? Seems you didn't read carefully enough...
Almost anyone who actually ends up in prison is not someone who is going to cooperate, behave, or otherwise be a good citizen.
If they were capable of that, they would not be in prison in the first place.
Run for office , get elected then find out how many of your constituants want their money spent on prisnors. Tell us how that works out for ya.
Of course money is a problem. But the way the US is currently handling its crime problem is also very costly. Wouldn't it be cheaper to create an environment that doesn't produce so many criminals in the first place than to build so many jails and feed armies of inmates for years and decades?
It's a societal problem, which won't go away just because people are locked away...
So you're saying that a person can be sent to prison without benefit of a trial? Every court system I'm aware of uses jails, not prisons, as a holding place for the accused.
If an innocent person is sent after a trial, then the fault lies in the trial system, not the prison system.
I believe I used the term "un "justice system...this would include the trial system and then continue with the prison system.
Having had a loved one in this situation, I am all too aware.
Almost anyone who actually ends up in prison is not someone who is going to cooperate, behave, or otherwise be a good citizen.
If they were capable of that, they would not be in prison in the first place.
I think just a rather small percentage of criminals are beyond repair so to speak. For the rest of them their prison time can decide what the rest of their lives will look like.
Many inmates shouldn't even be in there in the first place.
I think only violent crimes should be punishable by a prison sentence. No money-related crime etc. should lead to a prison term.
Of course money is a problem. But the way the US is currently handling its crime problem is also very costly. Wouldn't it be cheaper to create an environment that doesn't produce so many criminals in the first place than to build so many jails and feed armies of inmates for years and decades?
It's a societal problem, which won't go away just because people are locked away...
the solution
corporal punishment
you steal..we cut fingers
you rape..we cut your tool off
you kill, we take you life
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
