Can Privatized Prisons Work?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2016, 12:39 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2016 12:43 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Can Privatized Prisons Work?
(24-08-2016 11:25 PM)pablo Wrote:  John Oliver has done a few shows about the US prison system. This one speaks directly about private prisons.

All of this is absolutely correct. I was in two facilities, a jail and a prison, whose kitchens were run by Aramark for two and five years, respectively. I still recall the day I was first transferred to a facility that did not have private contractors supplying the food, and broke down crying when I recognized what type of meat I was eating for the first time in seven years.

I didn't even eat more than a couple of bites... I just sat there looking at the food that I could actually recognize as human food, and trying not to weep openly in front of other inmates.

Edit to Add: I still have significant organ damage from the medical care I received; only after a successful federal lawsuit, during which they tried to edit my records to destroy the evidence (not knowing I already had smuggled out copies via a sympathetic nurse who was appalled at what they were doing), was I able to force them to take me to outside providers who quickly corrected my treatment to something that is medically legitimate. But unfortunately, the damage remained. I tried to sue for the damage that was done to me, but was unable to prove that it was done deliberately/knowingly, and so the damages suit was thrown out thanks to an anti-inmate law called the "Prison Litigation Reform Act", which puts a significantly higher bar in the way of inmates seeking "standing" to bring a suit in court than is faced by civilians. Essentially, prisoners were winning so many lawsuits about the brutal conditions they faced that in 1996, a law was passed to stop the suits, rather than to address the problems. Fixed!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-08-2016, 03:05 AM
RE: Can Privatized Prisons Work?
You can tell a lot about a society by how its prisons are being run.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Slowminded's post
25-08-2016, 03:18 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2016 03:43 AM by adey67.)
RE: Can Privatized Prisons Work?
Heywood is a filthy little fucker who deserves at least a ban Rocket you have my full support for what its worth. Quite frankly the prevarication of the administration makes me nervous about being here myself. If someone spams this forum they are out usually very quickly too, but suggest that someone is a pederast or woman beater and its oh well we will suspend them and may or may not ban them wtf !!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
25-08-2016, 04:12 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2016 04:21 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Can Privatized Prisons Work?
(25-08-2016 03:18 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Heywood is a filthy little fucker who deserves at least a ban Rocket you have my full support for what its worth. Quite frankly the prevarication of the administration makes me nervous about being here myself. If someone spams this forum they are out usually very quickly too, but suggest that someone is a pederast or woman beater and its oh well we will suspend them and may or may not ban them wtf !!!!

Thank you for your support, Adey. I appreciate your kind words, and the PM you sent.

However, I do agree with the admins that they must tread very carefully in any aspect of their jobs that might appear to be suppression of free speech. I believe that a libelous attack of that sort more than crosses the line, but such decisions are rarely black and white, and my perspective may be clouded by the severity of the attack on my dignity-- we all have ego. All I can do is decide what is harmful to me, personally, and what I will and will not tolerate in my own life.

I think it is more than appropriate that they discuss it and are very careful about whether or not the line has been transgressed to the point of the nuclear option-- banning. As they pointed out, this is the "heavy stuff" arena, and there's a lot of leeway in here, as far as what can be said, and it takes a pretty serious transgression to even warrant a discussion on banning. In the case of spamming or other actions that are against clear-set rules, the decision is much simpler.

This must be a place we can go to be among others of our kind, who have experienced some of the social cruelty that is often leveled at us in the theist-dominated regular society, that is free from the worst of those attacks; otherwise, what's the point of calling it an atheist forum? It would simply be a science, philosophy, current events, and politics discussion board.

I think TTA needs a rule about patterns of deliberate harassment or cruelty. Attacking a person's ideas is fine, even heated arguments about ideas, but deliberately seeking to hurt members of the forum should be off limits, and it should be in writing so it's easier for our volunteer staff to bring down the ban hammer when necessary. I also think the wording must be carefully chosen to avoid vagueness and/or overbreadth, as I think free speech is an important virtue to preserve. But slander and libel are not protected speech, at least in the United States (and I think most of Europe), and I find that an acceptable line to draw.

And yes, it's 5:12 AM where I am, and I'm wide awake. *sigh*

Edit to Add: I see in the ban log that they decided for the nuclear option, after all. Thank you, moderators! I really, *really* didn't want to leave.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-08-2016, 04:19 AM
RE: Can Privatized Prisons Work?
If you're happy with that that's ok thanks for filling me in with the details of how and why it is as it is I understand much better now I was just absolutely furious at the time hope the admins can understand no disrespect intended. Just appalling unnecessary behaviour so sorry its raked up such trauma for you thy and get some rest if you can Hug
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
25-08-2016, 05:50 AM
RE: Can Privatized Prisons Work?
Banana_zorro:
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
25-08-2016, 09:38 AM
RE: Can Privatized Prisons Work?
I’ll admit to being terribly naive about this, but it just seems to me that bundling all prisoners into the same group is dangerous, counter-productive for rehabilitation, and frankly very expensive. Why aren’t some of the prisons operating as self-funded communities? At least some of the prisoners are non-violent and capable of performing tasks that can bring in income to support themselves. I’m sure there are non-violent prisoners who would be chomping at the bit to work a 9-5 job. Income generated from government contracts (like performing factory work) could offset the operational costs of the facility.

It just seems to me that in such a model, all parties are being appealed to. Tax payers could get a break by having prisoners fund their own incarcerations (at least in part), and prisoners would be productive and have a higher standard of living. They’d also be housed with like-minded people who are not violent so they wouldn’t be constantly worried about their safety. -Get caught with drugs in your system, weapons, or starting a fight, then you get sent back to the facility from whence you came.

Further, ALL prisoners should be offered opportunities for a high school diploma, and many prisoners should have access to bachelor’s programs. Can’t we get universities to donate extra spaces in online classrooms to prisons? It could be a tax-write-off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Aliza's post
25-08-2016, 11:00 AM
RE: Can Privatized Prisons Work?
(25-08-2016 04:12 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Thank you for your support, Adey. I appreciate your kind words, and the PM you sent.

However, I do agree with the admins that they must tread very carefully in any aspect of their jobs that might appear to be suppression of free speech. I believe that a libelous attack of that sort more than crosses the line, but such decisions are rarely black and white, and my perspective may be clouded by the severity of the attack on my dignity-- we all have ego. All I can do is decide what is harmful to me, personally, and what I will and will not tolerate in my own life.

I think it is more than appropriate that they discuss it and are very careful about whether or not the line has been transgressed to the point of the nuclear option-- banning. As they pointed out, this is the "heavy stuff" arena, and there's a lot of leeway in here, as far as what can be said, and it takes a pretty serious transgression to even warrant a discussion on banning. In the case of spamming or other actions that are against clear-set rules, the decision is much simpler.

This must be a place we can go to be among others of our kind, who have experienced some of the social cruelty that is often leveled at us in the theist-dominated regular society, that is free from the worst of those attacks; otherwise, what's the point of calling it an atheist forum? It would simply be a science, philosophy, current events, and politics discussion board.

I think TTA needs a rule about patterns of deliberate harassment or cruelty. Attacking a person's ideas is fine, even heated arguments about ideas, but deliberately seeking to hurt members of the forum should be off limits, and it should be in writing so it's easier for our volunteer staff to bring down the ban hammer when necessary. I also think the wording must be carefully chosen to avoid vagueness and/or overbreadth, as I think free speech is an important virtue to preserve. But slander and libel are not protected speech, at least in the United States (and I think most of Europe), and I find that an acceptable line to draw.

And yes, it's 5:12 AM where I am, and I'm wide awake. *sigh*

Edit to Add: I see in the ban log that they decided for the nuclear option, after all. Thank you, moderators! I really, *really* didn't want to leave.

I think it's been years now since we had a situation where two individuals triggered PTSD in a whole bunch of people, some remembering shit that happened after years of suppressing the memory. It was the biggest mess we had and Seth had to step in. It was then that the forum direction changed from absolute free speech for all at all time to looking out more for the members.

It's a slippery slope at times, and admin takes it seriously and deliberates and weighs everything that happened before making a decision. And I consider that a good thing.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Dom's post
25-08-2016, 11:14 AM
RE: Can Privatized Prisons Work?
(25-08-2016 11:00 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(25-08-2016 04:12 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Thank you for your support, Adey. I appreciate your kind words, and the PM you sent.

However, I do agree with the admins that they must tread very carefully in any aspect of their jobs that might appear to be suppression of free speech. I believe that a libelous attack of that sort more than crosses the line, but such decisions are rarely black and white, and my perspective may be clouded by the severity of the attack on my dignity-- we all have ego. All I can do is decide what is harmful to me, personally, and what I will and will not tolerate in my own life.

I think it is more than appropriate that they discuss it and are very careful about whether or not the line has been transgressed to the point of the nuclear option-- banning. As they pointed out, this is the "heavy stuff" arena, and there's a lot of leeway in here, as far as what can be said, and it takes a pretty serious transgression to even warrant a discussion on banning. In the case of spamming or other actions that are against clear-set rules, the decision is much simpler.

This must be a place we can go to be among others of our kind, who have experienced some of the social cruelty that is often leveled at us in the theist-dominated regular society, that is free from the worst of those attacks; otherwise, what's the point of calling it an atheist forum? It would simply be a science, philosophy, current events, and politics discussion board.

I think TTA needs a rule about patterns of deliberate harassment or cruelty. Attacking a person's ideas is fine, even heated arguments about ideas, but deliberately seeking to hurt members of the forum should be off limits, and it should be in writing so it's easier for our volunteer staff to bring down the ban hammer when necessary. I also think the wording must be carefully chosen to avoid vagueness and/or overbreadth, as I think free speech is an important virtue to preserve. But slander and libel are not protected speech, at least in the United States (and I think most of Europe), and I find that an acceptable line to draw.

And yes, it's 5:12 AM where I am, and I'm wide awake. *sigh*

Edit to Add: I see in the ban log that they decided for the nuclear option, after all. Thank you, moderators! I really, *really* didn't want to leave.

I think it's been years now since we had a situation where two individuals triggered PTSD in a whole bunch of people, some remembering shit that happened after years of suppressing the memory. It was the biggest mess we had and Seth had to step in. It was then that the forum direction changed from absolute free speech for all at all time to looking out more for the members.

It's a slippery slope at times, and admin takes it seriously and deliberates and weighs everything that happened before making a decision. And I consider that a good thing.

Hug Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
25-08-2016, 11:35 AM
RE: Can Privatized Prisons Work?
(25-08-2016 03:18 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Heywood is a filthy little fucker who deserves at least a ban Rocket you have my full support for what its worth. Quite frankly the prevarication of the administration makes me nervous about being here myself. If someone spams this forum they are out usually very quickly too, but suggest that someone is a pederast or woman beater and its oh well we will suspend them and may or may not ban them wtf !!!!

For the record, this is a load of shite. I'm very tired of people deciding for themselves what the admins job should be and how they should perform it. If you don't like how we do things here, you are free to move on. I've said it a thousand times...this forum is not for everyone.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Stark Raving's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: