Prisons.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2013, 07:02 AM
RE: Prisons.
(04-02-2013 12:21 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  I think prisons should change greatly in the future, especially if we determine free will to be an illusion.

We should develop prisons that put inmates through psychotherapy to alter their behaviour and make them useful to society instead of harmful. When an inmate shows improvement they can then be sent back in to the world. This way we would waste a lot less money on prisons, we wouldn't have as many inmates because we would be reforming and sending them back out more rapidly than we are now,


Yes, and we can call them re-education camps and send anyone who doesn't conform to the current norms.

I think this has been done before. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 12:23 PM
RE: Prisons.
(04-02-2013 12:21 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  I think prisons should change greatly in the future, especially if we determine free will to be an illusion.
That's a pretty big "if" right there. Consider

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
04-02-2013, 12:55 PM
RE: Prisons.
(03-02-2013 06:42 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  What I think our justice system, or at least the government, should be focusing on is the much earlier steps (well I think they should focus on all stages, but more so the early ones), such as the troubled home and up-bringing of the child or a child failing in the education system.
You need to treat the root cause of the problem as to change the way that chain reaction occurs. So if you can get children into schools and get them to learn then they can get qualifications and then get jobs etc..

OK, but just how far do you want to take this?

When should the government get involved in troubled homes, and what should that involvement be? How will the government even know if a home is troubled? Should all parents have monthly sessions with government shrinks to make sure they're raising their kids correctly (and by correctly, I mean according to what the government establishes as "correct")? What is the penalty, removing the kids from their parents (and put them where)? Jail time for the parents (where to the kids go)? Fining the parents (who often are just scraping by so fining them makes their situation worse, not better)? Public flogging?

Who establishes the definition of what is "correct"? I hope it's not Gov. Perry in Texas - his version of "correct" is certainly different than mine. Are you sure you want to involve the government so heavily in deciding you you raise your own kids?

As for getting involved in schools, the government is already FULLY involved in that, and look where it's gotten us in the U.S. Teachers are paid crap. Classrooms are too big. Textbooks are out of date (if the kids are lucky enough to have text books). Even the kids who want to learn and make something of themselves are fighting a losing battle. Sure, some of them still win, but government-funded and government-run school systems sure haven't made it easy for them.

All of this stuff will cost money. Who's going to pay for it? Taxes? I'm already taxed to the gills, I can barely afford to live. Besides, the rich politicians would work it so the poor working class schmucks would be the ones to shoulder the new tax burden - precisely the people you want to help. Reallocate government spending? Hasn't worked so far; our government can't balance its current budget without adding more costs like this.

You're talking government reforms, social reforms, justice reforms. Heck, when you start unraveling everything that's interconnected this way and try to put it back together into a new tapestry that works, you're practically reinventing socialism.

That's all I need...

There are no easy answers here.

And my fear is, when you give the government that much control, how long until we have no liberties left? If history has taught us anything, it's that governments don't relinquish power once they have it.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 01:15 PM
RE: Prisons.
"And my fear is, when you give the government that much control, how long until we have no liberties left?"

That's hard to say but, judging from the U.S. experiment, a damn lot of liberties can vanish in 237 years. Undecided
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 01:33 PM
RE: Prisons.
How much control the government should have and who they should put through 're-education camps' isn't a big question to me. If someone is causing another person physical harm, is verbally abusive, or is teaching their children in a way that will lead to them being a burden to society then they should be reformed. Getting everyone to agree on this is the problem, everyone has their own views of how things should be, and we end up with a conglomeration of opinions being made law.

I don't think it would be very difficult to create criterion for when people should be sent to re-education camps and when they are to be left alone. The only reasons for re-education should be physical or verbal abuse, not being a productive member of society, and being a fail-parent. Anything else should be allowed. On a side note I think high school should include a class specifically on how to successfully raise a child.

So unless the specified criterion are met people should be left to do whatever they want. The government shouldn't have power beyond this.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 02:50 PM
RE: Prisons.
"re-education camps"

WTF?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 04:24 PM
RE: Prisons.
(04-02-2013 12:55 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(03-02-2013 06:42 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  What I think our justice system, or at least the government, should be focusing on is the much earlier steps (well I think they should focus on all stages, but more so the early ones), such as the troubled home and up-bringing of the child or a child failing in the education system.
You need to treat the root cause of the problem as to change the way that chain reaction occurs. So if you can get children into schools and get them to learn then they can get qualifications and then get jobs etc..

OK, but just how far do you want to take this?

When should the government get involved in troubled homes, and what should that involvement be? How will the government even know if a home is troubled? Should all parents have monthly sessions with government shrinks to make sure they're raising their kids correctly (and by correctly, I mean according to what the government establishes as "correct")? What is the penalty, removing the kids from their parents (and put them where)? Jail time for the parents (where to the kids go)? Fining the parents (who often are just scraping by so fining them makes their situation worse, not better)? Public flogging?

Who establishes the definition of what is "correct"? I hope it's not Gov. Perry in Texas - his version of "correct" is certainly different than mine. Are you sure you want to involve the government so heavily in deciding you you raise your own kids?

As for getting involved in schools, the government is already FULLY involved in that, and look where it's gotten us in the U.S. Teachers are paid crap. Classrooms are too big. Textbooks are out of date (if the kids are lucky enough to have text books). Even the kids who want to learn and make something of themselves are fighting a losing battle. Sure, some of them still win, but government-funded and government-run school systems sure haven't made it easy for them.

All of this stuff will cost money. Who's going to pay for it? Taxes? I'm already taxed to the gills, I can barely afford to live. Besides, the rich politicians would work it so the poor working class schmucks would be the ones to shoulder the new tax burden - precisely the people you want to help. Reallocate government spending? Hasn't worked so far; our government can't balance its current budget without adding more costs like this.

You're talking government reforms, social reforms, justice reforms. Heck, when you start unraveling everything that's interconnected this way and try to put it back together into a new tapestry that works, you're practically reinventing socialism.

That's all I need...

There are no easy answers here.

And my fear is, when you give the government that much control, how long until we have no liberties left? If history has taught us anything, it's that governments don't relinquish power once they have it.
No, you're taking what I said too far.

The most at-risk children are children from poor backgrounds. It's just a fact, poor kids are more likely to get involved in drugs, gangs, crime and violence.
Poverty is the overall underlining issue here.
If you can move poor people to a point where they can work and have a reasonable standard of living, then crime will drastically reduce.

When I say the government should be focused on the family at the very beginning I don't mean the state should assign a referree for that families life. I mean that you need to address why that family, why that child I should say, resort to crime. If you can reduce the poverty rate you can increase that families standard of living and children are less likely to go into crime.

In saying that, welfare needs to be changed too. Part of the issue with poor families is they take the welfare check and just spend it on drugs or booze (not all I know, but the families we're talking about do), what example does that set for the children? It's no wonder children get into drugs or drinking or whatever when the parents are.

Even something as subtitle as a TV add can make a difference.

It's not about a guiding hand, not this monthly family inspection shit you're going on about. It's 100% doable, it's just noone with the power to do so does do so.

I'm not reinventing socialism, I'm saying we (earth) should be heading in that direction.
Capitalism private market sure, but health care, education and prisons should all be state owned and the first two should be free. It's really not hard. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries considered to have a good standard of living do this. You can have capitalist free markets and still have socialist social policies. You wont turn into a big evil commy, I promise.

As for education, once again it's not about the government controlling everything. It's about teachers realizing the students in need and then the school or whatever getting that student into special learning programs or whatever to get that child back on track.
Here's an idea, free breakfast for all students. Denmark do this. Many poor students go to school without breakfast. Without breakfast you don't concentrate, if you don't concentrate you don't learn (unless you're me), you don't learn to begin with you don't keep up as schooling goes on, you don't get an education, you become unemployable, you resort to crime.
Free breakfast doesn't even need to be a government thing. Here our largest dairy company donates milk to children every morning. For them it's marketing and they can write it off as a charitable donation, and for the children they get free milk. Last night on the news, Tip Top, our largest bread company announced that they are doing that same.



As for the rehabilitation centers, I think that's a shit idea.
While I belive all criminals should be taught a trade or get some sort of education etc.. what you have to remember is that a crime was commited. Irrespective of their background, someone else in the community was wronged and so justice does have to eb served.
This is why I say they should be taught a trade whilst in jail.

Quote:The people who call themselves government don't and can't prevent
anything. All they can do is react and the only tools they use when they
react are punitive.

Wrong, the government has all the power in the world and are very capable of reacting. It's not a question of can they, it's a question of why the fuck aren't they.

Quote:For instance, you mentioned that the government could do something more
for kids in school. Well, by the time a child reaches school age,
his/her personality is already developed. i.e., if the person has been
raised in a violent household, has been neglected as an infant etc, the
negative affects of that treatment have already been set. School can't
help at that point.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you are mentally fucked in the head.

Quote: Likewise, you can teach a criminal all the job skills in the world, but
if the person is not psychologically capable of peaceful interaction
with others, those skills are for naught.

Sure. I'm not saying give a criminal a trade skill and he will never be a criminal again. BUT it is a proven fact that criminals who come out of prisons with trades and/or skills are far far less likely to reoffend then someone without who just falls into the same patterns.

What you have to remember is that these people are human beings. More often then not they are in their situation due to a chain reaction of events in their life. If you can, and mind the corniness, show them the light and put a bit of faith and trust in them and teach them a trade then you'd be surprised of the turn arounds that can be made.

It's people like you with this fucked up mentality that criminals are all evil unfixable beasts that is halting any progress in this sector.
Look at the way things are done in America now, please point to where a difference is being made? Crime is high, prison populations are really high, criminals are being thrown out of prison early because room needs to be made for more criminals. It's a failing system. I don't see how any logical person can see how that model is in any way sustainable.

Quote:There are no easy answers here.

There really is an easy answer. There really is.
The government has full power to do something about it, to make actual change to real peoples lives, but it doesn't.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 06:57 PM
RE: Prisons.
(04-02-2013 04:24 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 12:55 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  OK, but just how far do you want to take this?

When should the government get involved in troubled homes, and what should that involvement be? How will the government even know if a home is troubled? Should all parents have monthly sessions with government shrinks to make sure they're raising their kids correctly (and by correctly, I mean according to what the government establishes as "correct")? What is the penalty, removing the kids from their parents (and put them where)? Jail time for the parents (where to the kids go)? Fining the parents (who often are just scraping by so fining them makes their situation worse, not better)? Public flogging?

Who establishes the definition of what is "correct"? I hope it's not Gov. Perry in Texas - his version of "correct" is certainly different than mine. Are you sure you want to involve the government so heavily in deciding you you raise your own kids?

As for getting involved in schools, the government is already FULLY involved in that, and look where it's gotten us in the U.S. Teachers are paid crap. Classrooms are too big. Textbooks are out of date (if the kids are lucky enough to have text books). Even the kids who want to learn and make something of themselves are fighting a losing battle. Sure, some of them still win, but government-funded and government-run school systems sure haven't made it easy for them.

All of this stuff will cost money. Who's going to pay for it? Taxes? I'm already taxed to the gills, I can barely afford to live. Besides, the rich politicians would work it so the poor working class schmucks would be the ones to shoulder the new tax burden - precisely the people you want to help. Reallocate government spending? Hasn't worked so far; our government can't balance its current budget without adding more costs like this.

You're talking government reforms, social reforms, justice reforms. Heck, when you start unraveling everything that's interconnected this way and try to put it back together into a new tapestry that works, you're practically reinventing socialism.

That's all I need...

There are no easy answers here.

And my fear is, when you give the government that much control, how long until we have no liberties left? If history has taught us anything, it's that governments don't relinquish power once they have it.
No, you're taking what I said too far.

The most at-risk children are children from poor backgrounds. It's just a fact, poor kids are more likely to get involved in drugs, gangs, crime and violence.
Poverty is the overall underlining issue here.
If you can move poor people to a point where they can work and have a reasonable standard of living, then crime will drastically reduce.

When I say the government should be focused on the family at the very beginning I don't mean the state should assign a referree for that families life. I mean that you need to address why that family, why that child I should say, resort to crime. If you can reduce the poverty rate you can increase that families standard of living and children are less likely to go into crime.

In saying that, welfare needs to be changed too. Part of the issue with poor families is they take the welfare check and just spend it on drugs or booze (not all I know, but the families we're talking about do), what example does that set for the children? It's no wonder children get into drugs or drinking or whatever when the parents are.

Even something as subtitle as a TV add can make a difference.

It's not about a guiding hand, not this monthly family inspection shit you're going on about. It's 100% doable, it's just noone with the power to do so does do so.

I'm not reinventing socialism, I'm saying we (earth) should be heading in that direction.
Capitalism private market sure, but health care, education and prisons should all be state owned and the first two should be free. It's really not hard. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries considered to have a good standard of living do this. You can have capitalist free markets and still have socialist social policies. You wont turn into a big evil commy, I promise.

As for education, once again it's not about the government controlling everything. It's about teachers realizing the students in need and then the school or whatever getting that student into special learning programs or whatever to get that child back on track.
Here's an idea, free breakfast for all students. Denmark do this. Many poor students go to school without breakfast. Without breakfast you don't concentrate, if you don't concentrate you don't learn (unless you're me), you don't learn to begin with you don't keep up as schooling goes on, you don't get an education, you become unemployable, you resort to crime.
Free breakfast doesn't even need to be a government thing. Here our largest dairy company donates milk to children every morning. For them it's marketing and they can write it off as a charitable donation, and for the children they get free milk. Last night on the news, Tip Top, our largest bread company announced that they are doing that same.



As for the rehabilitation centers, I think that's a shit idea.
While I belive all criminals should be taught a trade or get some sort of education etc.. what you have to remember is that a crime was commited. Irrespective of their background, someone else in the community was wronged and so justice does have to eb served.
This is why I say they should be taught a trade whilst in jail.

Quote:The people who call themselves government don't and can't prevent
anything. All they can do is react and the only tools they use when they
react are punitive.

Wrong, the government has all the power in the world and are very capable of reacting. It's not a question of can they, it's a question of why the fuck aren't they.

Quote:For instance, you mentioned that the government could do something more
for kids in school. Well, by the time a child reaches school age,
his/her personality is already developed. i.e., if the person has been
raised in a violent household, has been neglected as an infant etc, the
negative affects of that treatment have already been set. School can't
help at that point.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you are mentally fucked in the head.

Quote: Likewise, you can teach a criminal all the job skills in the world, but
if the person is not psychologically capable of peaceful interaction
with others, those skills are for naught.

Sure. I'm not saying give a criminal a trade skill and he will never be a criminal again. BUT it is a proven fact that criminals who come out of prisons with trades and/or skills are far far less likely to reoffend then someone without who just falls into the same patterns.

What you have to remember is that these people are human beings. More often then not they are in their situation due to a chain reaction of events in their life. If you can, and mind the corniness, show them the light and put a bit of faith and trust in them and teach them a trade then you'd be surprised of the turn arounds that can be made.

It's people like you with this fucked up mentality that criminals are all evil unfixable beasts that is halting any progress in this sector.
Look at the way things are done in America now, please point to where a difference is being made? Crime is high, prison populations are really high, criminals are being thrown out of prison early because room needs to be made for more criminals. It's a failing system. I don't see how any logical person can see how that model is in any way sustainable.

Quote:There are no easy answers here.

There really is an easy answer. There really is.
The government has full power to do something about it, to make actual change to real peoples lives, but it doesn't.

The governing bodies are made up of inadequate human beings, despite some very strong skills in specific areas, like the rest of us.
Where there is no strong compliance, governments disagree even among themselves, let alone the opposition, and this is healthy, as people en masse at least keep trying.
Democracy, for all its faults, IMO allows for some creative growing for its citizens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: