Capital Punishment - again.

[jotabe]

Get "re-educated on how and why not to do bad things?" Get... what, exactly?

It worked quite well in USSR and China, actually.
It depends on the methods you use for reeducation.

Still, the point is that it's precisely the prision where the inmate has to perceive law and order as all-present and all-pervading. A prision where the imperium of law is absent is not really a deterrent... the strongest and more brutal would actually be quite comfortable.

[Psudo]

I don't see "Well, we probably can't put a stop to it anyway" as a justification for not trying. For any crime.

I didn't say it was. But the question remains: trying what? Motives are all well and good, but they require means before they're relevant.

[jotabe]

First step would probably be firing all the staff and guards, and hiring new blood. And punishing with prision the guards of the prisions where it happens.

[Graff*]

I always thought "Wouldn't it be worse living the rest of your life in jail than to die" So I guess I'm not really for capital Punishment.

[Syphon the Sun]

First step would probably be firing all the staff and guards, and hiring new blood. And punishing with prision the guards of the prisions where it happens.

Okay, so, they fire the guards and implement the "no prison rape" rule. What now? How are the new guards going to enforce that rule? Making rules is fine, but if you're not going to equip anyone with the power to enforce them, firing someone for the non-enforcement seems pretty ridiculous. You'll just keep firing people until you realize that, by gosh, just making something a "rule" doesn't, in itself, solve anything.

So what powers are you prepared to equip the guards with to prevent prison rape?

[Eaquae Legit]

Education couldn't hurt. It's how we've tried to end rape in the public. But I'm not a criminal psychologist or social worker or prison guard. I don't know the specifics of what kind of systems we'd need in place to cut down prison rape. Arguing for the status quo based on "difficulty" and "impracticality" are, when you strip them down, arguments for rape being allowed.

In other words, prison is not as satisfying a punishment to society if we take the rape out of it.

I agree with this. However, I do not believe prison should be there as a way of satisfying our vengeance-lust. How satisfying it is does not justify rape.

Still, the point is that it's precisely the prision where the inmate has to perceive law and order as all-present and all-pervading. A prision where the imperium of law is absent is not really a deterrent... the strongest and more brutal would actually be quite comfortable.

I also agree with this. It's great how we promote the idea of a lawful and just society by allowing the law to be ignored and flaunted in certain circumstances. What message does that send? "If you do it to people no one likes anyway, you can get away with it."

[Syphon the Sun]

Arguing for the status quo based on "difficulty" and "impracticality" are, when you strip them down, arguments for rape being allowed.

Who here is arguing that?

[Psudo]

First step would probably be firing all the staff and guards, and hiring new blood.

That's a bigger deal that you might imagine. If you fire everyone in an industry, you're restricting from employment anyone with experience or proven ability in the field. Also, what justice is there in firing the able and effective staff and guards right along with the unable and ineffective? It might make sense to fire a strong fraction of underperformers and the rape-tolerant, but not everyone.

If it remains unknown how to enforce a ban on prison rape, that subset of guards and staff who have been fighting it for years would be the best sources of enforcement ideas. They, at least, shouldn't be fired for pursuing the same goals as you.

Overall, the goal should be to use the law and it's enforcement to show a quickly, universally, and equally applied justice. Too much delay, inconsistent enforcement, and exceptions where justice is evaded are the threats that discredit the law. Anyone can certainly see how prison rape meets those criteria. The only remaining question (and it must inherently be a difficult one or the problem wouldn't exist) is "How do we fix it?"

Prisoners have very little privacy, as they tend to use every bit of it to try to fight the system. But they must have some or prison rape wouldn't happen in secret. Perhaps take that away?

One cannot harm another without having contact with them; eliminate multiple occupancy cells?

It is thought that crime is the refuge of the uneducated; perhaps provide education?

But any such ideas must keep the overall goal of justice in mind, and any of these proposals can be criticized in that light as well. Providing education as a reward for prison rape? Deny everyone privacy and company because some will use the opportunity to rape? Where's the justice in that?

It's a goal worth pursuing, but it's also a tangled problem that'll take real effort to solve. I especially like the idea of ethics classes for prisoners; education in precisely the field in which they've proven a need. But my liking the idea doesn't prove it effective either; it is only perhaps worth a try.

[jotabe]

It was a maximalist, obviously exagerated statement >_> i shouldn't even have to explain that.

But StS, they already have the powers. They can decide on separation of inmates, they have security circuits, they have control of the inmate timetable. They have power to exert violence to prevent crime inside the prision. Maybe they need more staff, or more means? Might be, but that's not the problem.

They just chose not to bother. Or to even become profiteers. Because drugs somehow find they way into prisions, and guards are in charge of examining whatever comes in and comes out.

[Psudo]

It was a maximalist, obviously exagerated statement >_> i shouldn't even have to explain that.

Sorry, I'm bad at judging exaggeration. Did you read the rest of my post, from the 3rd paragraph on, that wasn't about yours?

They have power to exert violence to prevent crime inside the prision. Maybe they need more staff, or more means? Might be, but that's not the problem.

They just chose not to bother. Or to even become profiteers.

Clearly that happens. It is also clear that such people are caught from time to time (in this case, on a tip from an inmate). Clearly some enforcement of the rules against guards already exists and, to some extent, is working. I don't see how eliminating a large segment of the guard population at random is going to be an improvement, and the attempt to eliminate corrupt guards specifically already exists.

So what, exactly, are you proposing?

[jotabe]

I read the rest of your message. I just didn't have anything to comment on it... because there is no magical solution that will fix it. Because the real problem isn't in the prisions themselves. It's in the perception of the society of this as a problem.
Politicians don't get public's heat because of crime happens within the walls of the prision, hence they don't put pressure on the police to correct the problem. Nor on the district attorneys to investigate* it.
Guards don't care about law and order because they aren't made to do so, because society as a whole doesn't give a damn about whatever happens to the inmates as long as they isolate them from society. Because the correctional part of a prision sentence hasn't got through the hard heads of people. They just see the punitive part, and that's it.

And if you only care about the punitive part, you are building yourself a problem for when the prisioners get out.

*Dunno exactly how the power chain of the district attorneys work in the US; over here they depend from the national attorney, who depends on the ministry of justice.

[Syphon the Sun]

They just chose not to bother.

You never cease to amaze me.

You apparently don't think that the fact that the cell doors common in modern prisons block almost the entire view of the cell from guards and nearly sound-proof the cell significantly contribute to it. (Keep in mind: these modern cell doors were hard-fought victories for prison rights activists, to give the prisoners more privacy -- the same activists now fighting to end prison rape.) Or that the rate of prison rape is much lower in older prisons, where the cell doors are bars, which don't muffle sound or block the view.

Or that it's really not as prevalent as some people think. Current statistical estimates -- which are required by law in the US -- put the figure of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual victimization at 2.1% nationally. Some prisons have (much) higher incident rates; some have (much) lower incident rates. For example, the Estelle Unit in Huntsville, TX has the highest rate in the U.S. with 8.5%. A number of prisons have had an incident rate of 0%, though, including the Schuylkill, Big Spring, and Bennettsville federal prisons in Minersville, PA, Big Spring, TX, and Bennettsville, SC.

That's not to say that it shouldn't be stopped, or that it's a trivial issue; it's just not as widespread as sometimes represented. And it's not to say that other sexual misconduct isn't also happening in the prisons. (An estimated 1.7% of prisoners were victims of non-consensual sexual activity with prison staff and another 1.7% engaged in consensual sexual activity with staff. Some of these prisoners also overlap with the above 2.1% who were victims of prisoner-on-prisoner rape.) But that's another problem altogether and, I think, probably easier to solve.

[jotabe]

Well, if solid doors are part of problem, get rid of them. Privacy means very little when you are forced to share a bunk. It would be ok if the cells were actually individual.

An interest data would be to know if there is a correlation between low prison rape and low drug-dealing within the prisions. That would dispel or help to stablish a common causation.

You shouldn't work under the assumption that rights activists are always right, as (many) times they will be wrong, specially when it comes to practical implementation rather than matter of principle.

[Psudo]

So, jotabe, what principles are you seeking? Because your advocacy seems random.

Earlier you said, "Solitary confinement seems pretty bad." Now you're saying, "It would be ok if the cells were actually individual." Your willing to change your mind to make your advocacy match your principles better, and that's a good thing in itself. But what principles are those?

It's not privacy; "Privacy means very little" you say. I don't think you value physical dignity; "firing squad is win every time" you say. You're all for dramatic executions where "fun can be had by one and by all," but upi treat protection from rape is a sacrosanct personal duty. You're all over the map, seemingly embracing and abandoning all obvious principles.

So clarify for me: what dark humor or sarcasm or other subtly am I missing? Or are your comments as shallow and impulsive as they seem?

[jotabe]

Some are shallow and impulsive, like firing all the staff and guards, and put them in prision for good measure.
Some are sarcastic, like the defense of shotgun firing squads.
It would be pretty boring if i kept the same tone in every post >.>

We are not going to fix the world in the pweb, so no matter how serious a discussion turns out, it will be quite pointless. So, i think it's a good thing we can all have good fun while arguing pointlessly. There is a time to be serious and a time to play around, like the bible should say.

On the other hand when i try to take the matter seriously: solitary confinement is not the same thing as individual cells. I understand that solitary confinement is a punishment where you spend most of the day locked in an isolated cell where you can't talk to anybody and can't do any free-time activities.
On the other hand, read the sentences till the full-stop: "Privacy means very little when you are forced to share a bunk." Because when you share a bunk, you already have no privacy. So taking measurements to protect the privacy when you already don't have it, it's pointless.
About my position regarding prision rape it's almost personal, yes: When i was getting ready to go to the US, one of the things that scared me most was someone slipping "something" in my luggage so i would end up in a US prision. One of my considerations, in such situation, would be assaulting some agent to get myself shot at, rather than going to prision and get raped.
Yes, you can call me paranoid <.< but when you have a few weeks to revise every possible worst-case scennario, you can bump on some very sordid ones.

[Psudo]

There is a time to be serious and a time to play around, like the bible should say.

"To everything there is a season." Close enough?

On the other hand, read the sentences till the full-stop: "Privacy means very little when you are forced to share a bunk."

I didn't want to split hairs. Often, two people (prisoners, even) want to be alone together for perfectly good reasons; friendship, a feeling of self-determination, all those social feelings we as a species are bred to want. How do you separate those who wish for privacy to build upon their healthy impulses from those who wish for privacy to demean and harm others? If you can't, you punish both sides for one side's sins.

Voluntary single occupancy might protect a paranoid few, but won't do much against the statistics at large.

Yes, you can call me paranoid

Paranoia is a short-term survival trait. Rationality is a long-term survival trait. Without short-term survival, the long-term is irrelevant. I don't criticize your paranoia.

By way of comfort, consider that customs violations don't get you put in prisons with violent convicts, but in customs and border control detainment centers with other customs violators or perhaps county jails along with underage drinkers and parking fine evaders. There are as many kinds of detention centers as there are law enforcement agencies, which is to say a LOT.

[jotabe]

Well you know... they aren't in prision because their ability to make social bonds and grow upon them got the better of them. Kids still make friends with non-neighbour schoolmates despite they have like 2 or 3 hours a day to socialize with them. So keeping certain limits in the socialization of people who have been proven to be too dangerous to allow them to live in society can be a good idea.

About customs... yes, but what if they slip drugs in my luggage? They wouldn't be as lenient as with any other kind of custom violations. There are scary stories of spaniards who go to foreign countries Or in the US, when the custom officers take away our sausages

[Psudo]

If you care more about isolating prisoners than preparing them for healthy social lives, you are building yourself a problem for when the prisoners get out.

Drugs will get you sitting in a customs room explaining yourself. Worse may happen in one out of ten thousand or so cases, but dying when your cab crashes after an uneventful trip through customs is far more likely.

As for your sausages, they make our hot dogs feel inadequate. =]

[jotabe]

Again, it's not really about isolation. They can talk to each other through the bars. They can socialize in free time. But leaving them at each other's mercy... look about the guy who ate his cellmate's lung!

[Psudo]

No friendship is possible if all conversation has to be shouted into the next cell. Who are your good friends, the ones you only see at work or saw only at recess back in school? I think not.

[jotabe]

That might explain my anti-social tendencies, seeing as my only friends were from school, as i hated my neighbours

Btw, there is nothing like a good spanish pork sausage

[Psudo]

I don't need a lot of friends, but I need a close friend or two. I used to travel quite a ways to spend time with my close friends. Now that I'm married it requires less travel, but it's the same.

But people generally need social contact, and they should have that which they do not waste.