Michael Moore visits a "prison of the future" in Norway.

[madfoot]

I know we don't like Michael Moore, but someone linked to this on reddit and I thought it was interesting. I've never seen something like this before, we all agree the current prison system is bad, would this be a step in the right direction or not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01mTKDaKa6Q#t=04m18s

[Sola_Fide]

This is like your 3rd Michael Moore thread today dude.

[Zatch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSaoirOdZOQ

[Anti Federalist]

The only steps in the right direction I'm interested in is a complete ban on capital punishment and a reduction in the largest prison population in the world. (The US)

[TheNcredibleEgg]

ugh - huge NO from me.

I don't want cozy prisons. I want prisons to be for punishment. I care very little about rehabilitation.

What I do want for prison reform here is to clear out all the prisoners charged with victimless crimes - and just punish the violent offenders. Severely. There should be lots of excess room available then.

The video talked about a prisoner charged with double murder with a chainsaw. A freakin' chainsaw. And he's living in that cozy place - with only a four year sentence. Insane. The two people he killed lives are gone forever. There is no second chance for them. I think he should be in jail - and miserable - forever.

[dejavu22]

This seems to me to be another case of argument by definition... If you listen it states that people are only sent there at the end of their terms and that they are free to leave and go to town and they must have jobs... its a giant halfway house and hardly a prison.

As far as the larger issue in this is concerned... Prison is punishment, feed them and keep them alive, everything else is too generous. Also parole, good behavior and all that other crap it only muddies the water, if you are sentenced to 3 years you should serve 26298 hours no more... no less.

[AZKing]

Well, considering that our current system turns petty crime committers into big time criminals, that sure seems like a better system for them.

Not sure if I want proven murderers that open and free. I think I'd be a little offended that someone who killed another person seems to be freer than I am.

[madfoot]

This is like your 3rd Michael Moore thread today dude.

no?

[madfoot]

ugh - huge NO from me.

I don't want cozy prisons. I want prisons to be for punishment. I care very little about rehabilitation.

What I do want for prison reform here is to clear out all the prisoners charged with victimless crimes - and just punish the violent offenders. Severely. There should be lots of excess room available then.

The video talked about a prisoner charged with double murder with a chainsaw. A freakin' chainsaw. And he's living in that cozy place - with only a four year sentence. Insane. The two people he killed lives are gone forever. There is no second chance for them. I think he should be in jail - and miserable - forever.

Norway has something like the second lowest murder rate in the world. I know correlation isn't always causation, but they gotta be doing something right...

[Expatriate]

I thought this thread was going to be about something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

[crazyfacedjenkins]

ugh - huge NO from me.

I don't want cozy prisons. I want prisons to be for punishment. I care very little about rehabilitation.

What I do want for prison reform here is to clear out all the prisoners charged with victimless crimes - and just punish the violent offenders. Severely. There should be lots of excess room available then.

The video talked about a prisoner charged with double murder with a chainsaw. A freakin' chainsaw. And he's living in that cozy place - with only a four year sentence. Insane. The two people he killed lives are gone forever. There is no second chance for them. I think he should be in jail - and miserable - forever.

You sound like the kind of guy who repeatedly pokes a dog's face while it's in the kennel. Your logic is that of a typical reactionary tool who's never been on the butt end of the law. Hopefully people with your animal logic will face the repercussions of their asinine ideology. A repeatedly convicted criminal having his way with the asshole who shoved him in the corner and spit on him.

[Kregisen]

Point at the end of the video about Norway having a maximum punishment of 21 years and the lowest murder rate in the world is moot. If most murderers in the U.S. get life in prison or 50 years or something, they aren't going to be murdering again anyway, so changing a sentence to a murderer from 50 years in prison to "prison" on an island will not lower the rate. It will lower the deterrant though, which will increase the crime.

If America wants to lower the murder rate, it needs to end the war on drugs, which costs 10,000 homicides a year according to Milton Friedman. Then we can focus on violent crime and lower it severely.

[Kregisen]

You sound like the kind of guy who repeatedly pokes a dog's face while it's in the kennel. Your logic is that of a typical reactionary tool who's never been on the butt end of the law. Hopefully people with your animal logic will face the repercussions of their asinine ideology. A repeatedly convicted criminal having his way with the asshole who shoved him in the corner and spit on him.

Where does the government get the authority to rehabilitate people, using taxpayer money no less? How the hell is that any better than foreign aid? What's the difference?

The government is there to protect the rights of citizens, which includes punishing people who infringe on those rights and creating deterrants out of those punishments. Unfortunately our system fails miserably at this right now, but that does not mean that our government should be using taxpayer money to make sure prisoners are learning skills and given a job in the real world. That's not the role of government - that's the role of charities just like any other "good cause".

The government does not owe you the training and skills needed to live in the world.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Norway has something like the second lowest murder rate in the world. I know correlation isn't always causation, but they gotta be doing something right...

Maybe because their judicial system is above treating people like animals. Isn't it ironic that dipshits who are supposed to be against criminal activity are the ones so quick to inflict the same behavior on others that break the law? Sounds hypocritical and worthy of punishment.

[madfoot]

Where does the government get the authority to rehabilitate people, using taxpayer money no less? How the hell is that any better than foreign aid? What's the difference?

Where does the government get the authority to punish people? How is that any better than global interventionism? What's the difference?

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Where does the government get the authority to rehabilitate people, using taxpayer money no less? How the hell is that any better than foreign aid? What's the difference?

The government is there to protect the rights of citizens, which includes punishing people who infringe on those rights and creating deterrants out of those punishments. Unfortunately our system fails miserably at this right now, but that does not mean that our government should be using taxpayer money to make sure prisoners are learning skills and given a job in the real world. That's not the role of government - that's the role of charities just like any other "good cause".

When you know your ideology has failed miserably, why continue to pursue such mindless reactionary nonsense? You know our re incarceration rates are staggeringly high, and our murder rates are that of a fucking third world country. Why continue to pursue Sharia law bullshit?

[Kregisen]

Where does the government get the authority to punish people? How is that any better than global interventionism? What's the difference?

Read my post before commenting and you would have your answer. The government's role is to protect the rights of the people. If you refuse this point we might as well end this right now lol.

[Kregisen]

When you know your ideology has failed miserably, why continue to pursue such mindless reactionary nonsense? You know our re incarceration rates are staggeringly high, and our murder rates are that of a fucking third world country. Why continue to pursue Sharia law bullshit?

And murder rates are so high because of the war on drugs. If I remember correctly we have 17,000ish homicides a year, and 10,000 of those are because of the war on drugs. Want to drop the rate 60%? Boom.

Switching to rehabilitation will not have much of an impact on the murder rate anyway, given that sentences for murders are extremely high i.e. 50 years (I don't know what the average sentence for first time murderer is, it's obviously lower than 50 years in our current failed system)


If the government guaranteed every inmate a government job with $1 million salary out of prison, you would eliminate returning inmates completely. This is no different than rehabilitation in the sense that it's using money to aid inmate's future lives. NOT the role of government.

I don't believe you can be a libertarian and support the government paying for rehabilitation just like any other form of aid - leave it to charities.

[reillym]

ugh - huge NO from me.

I don't want cozy prisons. I want prisons to be for punishment. I care very little about rehabilitation.

What I do want for prison reform here is to clear out all the prisoners charged with victimless crimes - and just punish the violent offenders. Severely. There should be lots of excess room available then.

The video talked about a prisoner charged with double murder with a chainsaw. A freakin' chainsaw. And he's living in that cozy place - with only a four year sentence. Insane. The two people he killed lives are gone forever. There is no second chance for them. I think he should be in jail - and miserable - forever.


Great. So prisons will continue to be the birthing place of many more criminals. Without rehabilitation, that is what happens. They don't get out and love the world. They hate it, and commit more crime.

[reillym]

And murder rates are so high because of the war on drugs. If I remember correctly we have 17,000ish homicides a year, and 10,000 of those are because of the war on drugs. Want to drop the rate 60%? Boom.

Switching to rehabilitation will not have much of an impact on the murder rate anyway, given that sentences for murders are extremely high i.e. 50 years (I don't know what the average sentence for first time murderer is, it's obviously lower than 50 years in our current failed system)


If the government guaranteed every inmate a government job with $1 million salary out of prison, you would eliminate returning inmates completely. This is no different than rehabilitation in the sense that it's using money to aid inmate's future lives. NOT the role of government.

I don't believe you can be a libertarian and support the government paying for rehabilitation just like any other form of aid - leave it to charities.

Rehabilitation is not just for the inmate, it is for society. The role of government is to protect us for enemies foreign and home... criminals fit that description.

[Kregisen]

Rehabilitation is not just for the inmate, it is for society. The role of government is to protect us for enemies foreign and home... criminals fit that description.

So you support the war on drugs and banning fast food for the sake of society? Do you support banning alcohol as well so men don't go drinking then go home and beat their family? You have to, using your logic.

Since when does the government have the authority to give to people in hopes that they will act better towards the rest of society? That's called aid - and anyone who supports that has to also support something such as giving inmates a government job when they get out with a $1 million salary - there's no difference except the level of aid.

I'm surprised no other libertarians are up this late.

[goldencane]

Great. So prisons will continue to be the birthing place of many more criminals. Without rehabilitation, that is what happens. They don't get out and love the world. They hate it, and commit more crime.
So how do you rehabilitate inmates? Give them education and psychiatric help? Why should the tax payer pay for that? You can't rehab inmates. If they want to change, they change. If they don't, they don't. Usually the only thing that really makes people change is when they want to avoid something, not when they want to gain something. We need to get rid of all the pointless crimes so that only real criminals are in prison, and then make life a living hell for them. Get the cheapest calorie loaf crap possible and feed them that every day. That would really make them change.

[Kregisen]

So how do you rehabilitate inmates? Give them education and psychiatric help? Why should the tax payer pay for that? You can't rehab inmates. If they want to change, they change. If they don't, they don't. Usually the only thing that really makes people change is when they want to avoid something, not when they want to gain something. We need to get rid of all the pointless crimes so that only real criminals are in prison, and then make life a living hell for them. Get the cheapest calorie loaf crap possible and feed them that every day. That would really make them change.

To be fair, every person is different, and some people could be rehabilitated - but that doesn't MATTER.

It's not the role of government!!!! If we banned smoking we could save thousands of lives a year! If we banned fast food we could save millions a year in health care costs!!

It doesn't matter! It's not the role of government! And I'm going to bed. I should not be having to debate this on a 99% libertarian forum lol. Ridiculous that we only have statists up at this hour.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

You sound like the kind of guy who repeatedly pokes a dog's face while it's in the kennel. Your logic is that of a typical reactionary tool who's never been on the butt end of the law. Hopefully people with your animal logic will face the repercussions of their asinine ideology. A repeatedly convicted criminal having his way with the asshole who shoved him in the corner and spit on him.

Dude, seriously?

What kind of nonsense logic are you using to think I would want to hurt an innocent dog because I want to see violent criminals punished?

[dannno]

Wow, that was great. Reminded me of the first portion in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward that was also excellent (before the film started digging into the VP stuff)

[JohnEngland]

It's good that they have the prisoners doing work. I think one of the worst things one could do for the long-term health of a prisoner is alienate him/her from the normal activities of society, such that when they are released, they re-offend because they don't know how to adjust to having to work, earn money and live in a normal situation.

[dannno]

ugh - huge NO from me.

I don't want cozy prisons. I want prisons to be for punishment. I care very little about rehabilitation.

What I do want for prison reform here is to clear out all the prisoners charged with victimless crimes - and just punish the violent offenders. Severely. There should be lots of excess room available then.

The video talked about a prisoner charged with double murder with a chainsaw. A freakin' chainsaw. And he's living in that cozy place - with only a four year sentence. Insane. The two people he killed lives are gone forever. There is no second chance for them. I think he should be in jail - and miserable - forever.

Um, ok, but their society is much less violent than ours. It seems to be working pretty well. I guess that's why we live in states, though.. You can choose to live in a state that severely punishes prisoners and I theoretically can choose to live in one where criminals are separated from society for some time, and given time to cool off and alter their view of humanity.

I recommend watching the first portion of Zeitgiest: Moving Forward, it was the main reason I decided to post that film here and get the discussion going originally.

[dannno]

Point at the end of the video about Norway having a maximum punishment of 21 years and the lowest murder rate in the world is moot.

I think it's valid, it's all about the psychology, we are psychologically sick as a nation and that is a major cause of violent crime.. that same psychological sickness causes us to 'poke the dog in the cage' as it were.

[madfoot]

I don't believe you can be a libertarian and support the government paying for rehabilitation just like any other form of aid - leave it to charities.

But apparently you can be a libertarian and support the government paying for punishment.

WTF?


If the government guaranteed every inmate a government job with $1 million salary out of prison, you would eliminate returning inmates completely. This is no different than rehabilitation in the sense that it's using money to aid inmate's future lives. NOT the role of government.

...This is your best argument? Seriously?

"If we rehabilitate criminals, we might as well give them one million dollar government jobs. It's the same thing! No difference! Really!"

[madfoot]

So how do you rehabilitate inmates? Give them education and psychiatric help? Why should the tax payer pay for that? You can't rehab inmates. If they want to change, they change. If they don't, they don't. Usually the only thing that really makes people change is when they want to avoid something, not when they want to gain something. We need to get rid of all the pointless crimes so that only real criminals are in prison, and then make life a living hell for them. Get the cheapest calorie loaf crap possible and feed them that every day. That would really make them change.

I'm guessing here, but I bet we pay a lot more per prisoner than Norway does. If we could cut crime drastically, spend less money, and be more compassionate all around... why shouldn't we do that?

[silverhandorder]

While I am no expert I would advocate first to release all non violent criminals. As far as violent crime is concerned I think the best system would be the one that factors in reparations. Prisoners should be made to give back to the victims anything they can. Once that condition is satisfied I believe they should be able to go free. Prison should only be for those that are too dangerous to be let out back into society.

[madfoot]

I think a prevention-based system (read: rehabilitation) system would be optimal, but I agree there's basic issues that need to be fixed first. We can debate ideology later.

[silverhandorder]

I don't think rehabilitation system does much to prevent crime. Rehabilitation is done after the fact. However I believe in reparation/reabilitation over punishment.

Preventive measures rarely work since w/e is causing the problem is ussually blow back to past laws. We all know how hard it is to repeal anything government does.

[EndDaFed]

So how do you rehabilitate inmates? Give them education and psychiatric help? Why should the tax payer pay for that? You can't rehab inmates. If they want to change, they change.

The thought of someone with mental illness just deciding to change is just comical. Why should the taxpayer pay for anything? Be it prison or even a military? If we are going to pay for things we might as well do what works best and is the cheapest in the long term. Given our current system we don't have that. If it's cheaper to have someone will a mental illness medicated than locking them up for $50,000 a year that makes sense. Plus it would be an economic gain because they could have employment.

[prmd142]

Need to differentiate 2 things here. 'Life' and 'Right to life'. Life is a given. But the right to life has to be earned. How do you earn it? By recognizing other's right to live. If you don't recognize other's right to live, you won't get any right to live either. This is the basic premise on which a human society is founded.

Right to life, right to property and right to liberty (pursuit of happiness) are given only to those men in a society who recognize their fellow men's right to hold these to the same degree. When a person commits a murder without any initiation of force/fraud on the part of the victim, then the murderer on his own drops his right to life. So it is perfectly moral for the society to take him out whether through the government or by any other means that the society has set up to protect the life of its members. To argue that it is immoral to kill the murderer and that he should be given a chance to reform and the society should pay taxes to feed him and keep him alive, is to show disrespect to the ideals which enable the members of the society to lead a happy, just and productive life.

There should be zero tolerance to violation of the right to life, liberty and property. However I don't consider everyone who breaks the laws as criminals as many of the laws themselves are immoral and violate property rights (thanks government!). Hence drug addicts are not criminals. That's their personal choice. As long as a person doesn't violate these basic founding ideals of a society he should not be treated as a criminal. And as long as a person violates these same ideals he should not receive any mercy.

*expects an attack and ducks*

[goldencane]

I'm guessing here, but I bet we pay a lot more per prisoner than Norway does. If we could cut crime drastically, spend less money, and be more compassionate all around... why shouldn't we do that?

We pay more per prisoner, among other things because prison guard unions have successfully made labor expenses astronomical. Not because of the way we treat prisoners. I'm saying we should spend even less on them. Compassion costs money. If they can find away to make compassion make money for the state, I'm all for that.


The thought of someone with mental illness just deciding to change is just comical. Why should the taxpayer pay for anything? Be it prison or even a military? If we are going to pay for things we might as well do what works best and is the cheapest in the long term. Given our current system we don't have that. If it's cheaper to have someone will a mental illness medicated than locking them up for $50,000 a year that makes sense. Plus it would be an economic gain because they could have employment.

What do we do when the mentally ill person is out of prison? Keep paying for their meds? I don't like the idea of that. And meds alone do not help with mental illnesses. It takes meds and constant meeting with a psychiatrist, and usually a therapist as well. As you can imagine, all of this becomes very expensive very quickly. If we reform the system, it won't cost $50,000 a year to keep them locked up and it will be the cheaper alternative.

[Slutter McGee]

Norway has something like the second lowest murder rate in the world. I know correlation isn't always causation, but they gotta be doing something right...
You answered the first part with the second.
Correlation isn't always causation. Infact it is usually not

Slutter McGee

[fisharmor]

Prisons would not exist in a free society.

End the war on drugs, and every other vice law.
Repeal laws that define crimes against the state, because they are all anti-freedom.
Once you're left only with crimes against people, it becomes reasonable to implement justice based on restitution, instead of revenge.
Prison is revenge.
A restitution based system would seek to utilize offenders constructively. It would not seek to punish the victims by making them pay to have the offender incarcerated at great cost.

Bottom line:
Revenge costs money.
Rehabilitation costs money.
Restitution makes money.

If an offender is so stupid that he is willing to spend another ten years digging ditches with a gun pointed in his ribs rather than rehabilitate himself, well, I got some ditches that need digging cheap.

Rehabilitation is the acme of statism and collectivism. I do not assume that ANYONE is incapable of making intelligent decisions. I therefore do not assume that the attempted programming of criminals is compatible with liberty.

[Vessol]

"Prisons" are state-approved and run kidnapping facilities.

Use the correct term please.

[amy31416]

Prisons would not exist in a free society.

End the war on drugs, and every other vice law.
Repeal laws that define crimes against the state, because they are all anti-freedom.
Once you're left only with crimes against people, it becomes reasonable to implement justice based on restitution, instead of revenge.
Prison is revenge.
A restitution based system would seek to utilize offenders constructively. It would not seek to punish the victims by making them pay to have the offender incarcerated at great cost.

Bottom line:
Revenge costs money.
Rehabilitation costs money.
Restitution makes money.

If an offender is so stupid that he is willing to spend another ten years digging ditches with a gun pointed in his ribs rather than rehabilitate himself, well, I got some ditches that need digging cheap.

Rehabilitation is the acme of statism and collectivism. I do not assume that ANYONE is incapable of making intelligent decisions. I therefore do not assume that the attempted programming of criminals is compatible with liberty.

In an ideal world, I'd agree with you. But things like this happen: a psychopath repeatedly raped a 15-year-old girl, hacked off her arms with an axe, then threw her down a cliff. Amazingly, she survived...the guy gets 10 years, and tells the girl that he's going to "finish the job." He doesn't finish her, but he does rape and kill another woman...then he gets a life sentence.

Your scenario doesn't deal with fellows like him, though in my personal opinion, he's an excellent candidate for vigilante justice. And while part of it is about revenge on him, the other part is stopping him from doing this to another person.

[Vessol]

In an ideal world, I'd agree with you. But things like this happen: a psychopath repeatedly raped a 15-year-old girl, hacked off her arms with an axe, then threw her down a cliff. Amazingly, she survived...the guy gets 10 years, and tells the girl that he's going to "finish the job." He doesn't finish her, but he does rape and kill another woman...then he gets a life sentence.

Your scenario doesn't deal with fellows like him, though in my personal opinion, he's an excellent candidate for vigilante justice. And while part of it is about revenge on him, the other part is stopping him from doing this to another person.

How does the current system deal with "fellows like him"?

Antisocial fucktwats will exist and will continue to exist in any system. You can't prevent it. Why should we create a system that is completely immoral just so we can prevent something that is not preventable.

[amy31416]

How does the current system deal with "fellows like him"?

Antisocial fucktwats will exist and will continue to exist in any system. You can't prevent it. Why should we create a system that is completely immoral just so we can prevent something that is not preventable.

They are hit & miss in lifetime prison sentences. What would you do if it were your daughter? (And the second rape/murder WAS preventable.)

Not advocating for the current system--but what Fisharmor suggested does not in any way deal with psychopaths like him. Your proposal is zero punishment?

[Vessol]

They are hit & miss in lifetime prison sentences. What would you do if it were your daughter? (And the second rape/murder WAS preventable.)

Not advocating for the current system--but what Fisharmor suggested does not in any way deal with psychopaths like him. Your proposal is zero punishment?

Of course not. People have a right to self-defense and to come to the defense of others.

However, there is no effective way to deal with psychopaths like him. I know you're not using that as an excuse to justify the Statist Kidnapping System, but that is the excuse that they use, under the misguided belief that it somehow stops psychopaths.

[thetruthhurtsthefed]

True. Prisons are packed with too many people convicted of victimless crimes (taxes, speeding, jay walking.............). Prison system is a business and the government is a shareholder so to speak

[pcosmar]

Prison of the Future? (concept boggles)

you mean to say that socialist society has not eliminated crime?
(Shocked. I'm just shocked) :rolleyes:

[amy31416]

Of course not. People have a right to self-defense and to come to the defense of others.

However, there is no effective way to deal with psychopaths like him. I know you're not using that as an excuse to justify the Statist Kidnapping System, but that is the excuse that they use, under the misguided belief that it somehow stops psychopaths.

Well, in that particular case, if there were no prison/hole to throw him in, I'd likely hunt down, torture and possibly kill the man (though I would have to contemplate leaving him alive, handicapped (unable to commit again) and in agony until he died a "natural" death.) So I hope there's some provision in the Utopian vision for that.

And it wouldn't be defense, it'd be pre-meditated, and it'd be vengeance.

I am actually curious how that would be addressed, not just in some philosophical argument, because I'd like to advocate for a prison-less system, but scenarios like that (and others, I'm sure) just aren't addressed well.

[fisharmor]

Not advocating for the current system--but what Fisharmor suggested does not in any way deal with psychopaths like him. Your proposal is zero punishment?

Put psychopath in prison for life: society is punished by having to pay for it. Might prevent him from doing it again, at least to people we think are important (fellow prisoners obviously don't count :rolleyes:).

Kill psychopath: this is revenge, not justice. But it does prevent him from doing it again.

Add psychopath to a chain gang for the rest of his life, make him work his ass off for 16 hours a day, and send all profits to the victim or victim's family:
-as good a chance of preventing him from doing it again as prison
-victim actually gets something out of it besides a bullshit apology in court from offender
-someone else benefits from the cheap labor or other service rendered by the offender
-nobody else is killed
-this sends the message that the victim is actually the victim, and that the state isn't the primary victim here

How is this not a valid solution? How is it not punishment? How is it not GREATER punishment than what is currently done, which is to put them in a giant criminal career center for a couple years and let them go?

[Vessol]

Well, in that particular case, if there were no prison/hole to throw him in, I'd likely hunt down, torture and possibly kill the man (though I would have to contemplate leaving him alive, handicapped (unable to commit again) and in agony until he died a "natural" death.) So I hope there's some provision in the Utopian vision for that.

And it wouldn't be defense, it'd be pre-meditated, and it'd be vengeance.

I am actually curious how that would be addressed, not just in some philosophical argument, because I'd like to advocate for a prison-less system, but scenarios like that (and others, I'm sure) just aren't addressed well.

They're not really addressed that well in our current system either.

However, to address what would be done in a society without a State-Run Kidnapping Center. There could be private security which looks after the well being of individuals and a community. Honestly I'm not really concerned with finding a solution for what there is no real solution. My main concern is guaranteeing the least amount of violence and the most amount of individual liberty. State-Run Kidnapping Centers do not lower the amount of violence in society and do not increase the amount of individual liberty we have.

I really do hate the usage of the word Vigilantism. Because it precludes that the State is the only institution that is morally allowed to instigate force.

vig·i·lan·te
–noun
any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

That automatically creates a MONOPOLY on law and force. Only the State may distribute force. I think that is just as wrong as others distributing force IMO.

[amy31416]

Put psychopath in prison for life: society is punished by having to pay for it. Might prevent him from doing it again, at least to people we think are important (fellow prisoners obviously don't count :rolleyes:).

Kill psychopath: this is revenge, not justice. But it does prevent him from doing it again.

Add psychopath to a chain gang for the rest of his life, make him work his ass off for 16 hours a day, and send all profits to the victim or victim's family:
-as good a chance of preventing him from doing it again as prison
-victim actually gets something out of it besides a bullshit apology in court from offender
-someone else benefits from the cheap labor or other service rendered by the offender
-nobody else is killed
-this sends the message that the victim is actually the victim, and that the state isn't the primary victim here

How is this not a valid solution? How is it not punishment? How is it not GREATER punishment than what is currently done, which is to put them in a giant criminal career center for a couple years and let them go?

That wasn't in your other post, perhaps you posted that elsewhere, but I didn't read the whole thread. It seems that it may be reasonable solution, though not perfect in that there is still taxpayer funding of the court system.

One question though--this fellow's on a chain gang, doing cheap labor--where does he sleep/eat? Who watches over the prisoners and keeps them "incarcerated?"

Just having a tough time picturing this as not being damned close to the current prison system, but with slave labor.

[fisharmor]

vig·i·lan·te
–noun
any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

"[C19: from Spanish, from Latin vigilāre to keep watch]"

Use of the word semantically and necessarily implies that those assigned to keep watch are asleep on the job.
I say, let's take the term back.

[fisharmor]

That wasn't in your other post...
Not in detail but I did write that they ought to be used constructively. Using them constructively doesn't preclude using them abusively.


Just having a tough time picturing this as not being damned close to the current prison system, but with slave labor. Well, I avoided using the term because it is so politically charged, but that's what I'm advocating. As I like to point out recently, it's also currently totally legal under the 13th amendment.

Let's examine for a second.
Prior to the 19th century, long-term prisons didn't really exist.
Slavery, however, has existed since recorded time.
It therefore follows that slave labor does not require prisons.

[amy31416]

They're not really addressed that well in our current system either.

However, to address what would be done in a society without a State-Run Kidnapping Center. There could be private security which looks after the well being of individuals and a community. Honestly I'm not really concerned with finding a solution for what there is no real solution. My main concern is guaranteeing the least amount of violence and the most amount of individual liberty. State-Run Kidnapping Centers do not lower the amount of violence in society and do not increase the amount of individual liberty we have.

I really do hate the usage of the word Vigilantism. Because it precludes that the State is the only institution that is morally allowed to instigate force.

vig·i·lan·te
–noun
any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

That automatically creates a MONOPOLY on law and force. Only the State may distribute force. I think that is just as wrong as others distributing force IMO.

Call it what you like, I'm generally not one to nitpick on semantics. And I wouldn't be offended to be called a vigilante in that unlikely scenario....though it probably wouldn't be the most appropriate word.

Anyways, just food for thought, because there are psychopaths, serial killers, serial rapists and just generally violent people out there--and if those things aren't addressed effectively, then I suspect we'd slip right back to the same spot we are now...eventually.

Just look at the past and how we got to where we are. Those things often weren't addressed well enough, and so people advocated for bullshit solutions like state-run prison systems, or (worse?) private, for-profit prison systems that folks like Cheney are heavily invested in.

When a proposal is made, it has to be as complete as possible. You don't like/want to address it, but that just makes it more likely to be rejected...know what I mean? That happens a lot in libertarian circles with everything from stop signs to capital punishment.

[Vessol]

I don't think State-Run Kidnapping Facilities were ever proposed by Statists to protect us from psychopaths. The intended goal has and always will be for them to serve as a holding place for dissidents who are in some way against the State. Afterthat, the State has only used the argument of protecting society as an afterthought to continue the justification.

[amy31416]

Not in detail but I did write that they ought to be used constructively. Using them constructively doesn't preclude using them abusively.

Well, I avoided using the term because it is so politically charged, but that's what I'm advocating. As I like to point out recently, it's also currently totally legal under the 13th amendment.

Let's examine for a second.
Prior to the 19th century, long-term prisons didn't really exist.
Slavery, however, has existed since recorded time.
It therefore follows that slave labor does not require prisons.

I have no issue with "slave" labor for those who have violated other people...but it's such an emotionally charged word, that I think there's probably a better phrase. Anyways--I consider true "slaves" to be innocent people who have lost their rights through no fault of their own.

And, well, I have issue with your logic that it follows that slave labor does not require prisons. People are kept in bondage generally through fear. Psychopaths aren't necessarily fearful people, they also have a drive to harm others that both outweighs fear, and is fed by adrenaline--which is the closest they can often get to feeling anything.

In the animal world (at least mammals), these types are often simply killed off prior to, or right after they've committed some heinous act(yeah, I've watched a hell of a lot of animal kingdom-type shows). But that often doesn't fly in human societies.

Of course, animal "society" often kills off "defective" babies too...so I don't know of a perfect system to deal with these issues. But the more gaps that are filled, the more solid the argument.

[amy31416]

I don't think State-Run Kidnapping Facilities were ever proposed by Statists to protect us from psychopaths. The intended goal has and always will be for them to serve as a holding place for dissidents who are in some way against the State. Afterthat, the State has only used the argument of protecting society as an afterthought to continue the justification.

No disagreement. But given that our "safety" is an argument they use, it should be addressed.

[prmd142]

In an ideal world, I'd agree with you. But things like this happen: a psychopath repeatedly raped a 15-year-old girl, hacked off her arms with an axe, then threw her down a cliff. Amazingly, she survived...the guy gets 10 years, and tells the girl that he's going to "finish the job." He doesn't finish her, but he does rape and kill another woman...then he gets a life sentence.

Your scenario doesn't deal with fellows like him, though in my personal opinion, he's an excellent candidate for vigilante justice. And while part of it is about revenge on him, the other part is stopping him from doing this to another person.

You nailed it. No mercy to those who show no mercy.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

You nailed it. No mercy to those who show no mercy.

No mercy to those who show no mercy... to those who show no mercy. Don't you see the circular logic?? You're behaving like the fucking criminal!

What happened to you to make you so violent? Did you get the shit kicked out of you in high school? Why do you think acting out your ruthless, criminal, and sadistic fantasies is any better than the criminal? Sounds like you have some psychological complex, maybe you should seek mental help before you hurt someone.

[dannno]

You nailed it. No mercy to those who show no mercy.

Sometimes people show no mercy to others because they live in a sick society that has shown no mercy to them. That's not a justification for what they did to another innocent individual within said sick society, and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be removed... the question becomes, is what you are doing benefiting society? People in U.S. jails become even more sick and develop even deeper criminal minds. If you have a jail system that takes criminals and turns them into better people when they come out than when they came in, I would say that is a positive thing. What we have today is the precisely the opposite.

[dannno]

Somebody tell me this is still up and working... this is the clip from the new Zeitgeist that relates to this thread that I've been recommending everybody watch for some great information on the topic:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36HquPzdxf4

[fisharmor]

And, well, I have issue with your logic that it follows that slave labor does not require prisons. People are kept in bondage generally through fear.

People used to be kept in bondage by.... bonds.
Metallurgy has come a looooong way since people were actually put in chains. If it worked back then, it will work better now.

This site, to me, is all about examining systems and ideas from the past and evaluating their worth, where society has already thrown them in the rubbish bin and long forgotten them.
There are ways to solve this problem that don't even involve prison. I admit freely that the historical method included a whole lot more executions than I'd be comfortable with. But, to put it bluntly, history disagrees with your assessment as to whether prisons are necessary to slave labor.

If you choose to expand the definition to include gladiator schools, 18th century Virginia slave houses, British naval vessels, pillories, and Irish work houses, we can do that. But I'm speaking in the current context of the word "prison" - the one everyone assumes we're talking about. We demonstrably don't need those.

[dannno]

Somebody tell me this is still up and working... this is the clip from the new Zeitgeist that relates to this thread that I've been recommending everybody watch for some great information on the topic:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36HquPzdxf4

bump.. this needs to be towards the top of a page.. it should have been one of the first things posted..

[madfoot]

Compassion costs money. If they can find away to make compassion make money for the state, I'm all for that.

wow, um...

When our crime rates sink to a new low and we get our prisoners right back into the workforce, that'll be cheaper and better for the economy.q


Correlation isn't always causation. Infact it is usually not

That's a lazy way to avoid addressing the argument at all.

[madfoot]

One question though--this fellow's on a chain gang, doing cheap labor--where does he sleep/eat? Who watches over the prisoners and keeps them "incarcerated?"

Just having a tough time picturing this as not being damned close to the current prison system, but with slave labor.

I don't see why we can't stick them all on an island like they do in the video I posted. It's more humane and they're not escaping anywhere. Plus we can make them do work that's less demeaning and gives more back to society than digging holes.

[prmd142]

However, there is no effective way to deal with psychopaths like him.

Well there is. There is thing called gun. It has got something known as a trigger. You can pull that to take down psychopaths who have rejected their right to life by violating innocent men's rights.

Why is everyone so hell bent on forcing the right to life on a man who himself has rejected it. There are 2 aspects to be taken care in case of crime. One is compensation to the victim and other is to prevent the crime from happening again from the same man.

[Jeremy]

Not to be a pessimist, but this is asking for something to go wrong. It may even work for most people, but you only need one nut job to go crazy and murder everyone else in there. Guy who cut about his victims with a chainsaw is now cutting wood with a chainsaw... This specific man might not start murdering other inmates, but it's bound to happen eventually, no?

[madfoot]

Not to be a pessimist, but this is asking for something to go wrong. It may even work for most people, but you only need one nut job to go crazy and murder everyone else in there. Guy who cut about his victims with a chainsaw is now cutting wood with a chainsaw... This specific man might not start murdering other inmates, but it's bound to happen eventually, no?

I don't see why. I imagine they psychologically screen the inmates before sending them there. I'm sure accidents happen, but I can't see it being more common than violence in our prisons is.

[Tal]

Look the reason why Scandinavian countries have low murder rates is not because of our lax justice system that lets brutal murderers get off with very few years in jail, its because most scandinavians are very calm and non-violent people that are not pre-disposed to extreme anger and violence.
Danish football fans for example have a nickname, they are called Roligans which basically translates into ''calm fans'' since they were known to almost never get into fights with anyone.

Now you can ask why are scandinavians so non-violent? I think its because we used to have a very tough justice system in the old days, im pretty sure punishments for murder, rape and fraud were severe so the people with a habit for doing those sort of things were removed from society and denied the ability to breed, hence you end up with a population not inclined towards this behavior (danish kings used to send government officials in jail for life if they stole from the kings coffers for example).

Personally I am totally disgusted with the danish justice system and the way it often lets brutal murderers get off the hook after maybe 10 years, there was even a case of a 17 year old boy brutally murdering some innocent family man and he videotaped the whole thing, guess how many years this boy got in jail? 4 years.

4 years for robbing a family of their father forever, it makes me furious just thinking about it, that boy should have been sent to jail for the rest of his life with no possibility for parole.

Overall Michael Moore is clueless as usual when he says its the lax justice system that is the reason behind the low murder rates, the 2 things are not connected at all, in fact im pretty sure the low punishments increase murder rates to above their normal level.

[madfoot]

Does Norway have low reoffending rates?

[prmd142]

No mercy to those who show no mercy... to those who show no mercy. Don't you see the circular logic?? You're behaving like the fucking criminal!

What happened to you to make you so violent? Did you get the shit kicked out of you in high school? Why do you think acting out your ruthless, criminal, and sadistic fantasies is any better than the criminal? Sounds like you have some psychological complex, maybe you should seek mental help before you hurt someone.

Easy man easy.... why are you so angry. Take a break! Chill... :-)

[goldencane]

wow, um...

When our crime rates sink to a new low and we get our prisoners right back into the workforce, that'll be cheaper and better for the economy.q


Our crime rates will go down when the non-crimes, such as drugs, stop being crimes. Prison would be reserved for those who actually harmed people. Lets be real here, most prisoners don't want to change and they won't change. Those who do will take the initiative to do it on their own, they don't need anyone trying to "rehabilitate" them. And even if it is more expensive, rapists, murders, and the like should be locked up and suffer for their actions. Even if we could force rehabilitate people, they did something that infringed on the rights of another person. Why should we send them to prison for a few years, and then let them enjoy the rights and freedoms that they took away from someone else. Some people deserve to be punished for what they did, and that punishment needs to be as cheap and bad as possible.

[goldencane]

Does Norway have low reoffending rates?

Norway has a homogeneous population and they don't have as many "non-criminal" crimes there, at least they don't enforce them as harshly as the US.

[dannno]

Our crime rates will go down when the non-crimes, such as drugs, stop being crimes. Prison would be reserved for those who actually harmed people. Lets be real here, most prisoners don't want to change and they won't change. Those who do will take the initiative to do it on their own, they don't need anyone trying to "rehabilitate" them. And even if it is more expensive, rapists, murders, and the like should be locked up and suffer for their actions. Even if we could force rehabilitate people, they did something that infringed on the rights of another person. Why should we send them to prison for a few years, and then let them enjoy the rights and freedoms that they took away from someone else. Some people deserve to be punished for what they did, and that punishment needs to be as cheap and bad as possible.

I addressed these points in all of my previous posts.

They are addressed in the film clip I posted as well.

[madfoot]

Our crime rates will go down when the non-crimes, such as drugs, stop being crimes.

Yes, I agree.



Lets be real here, most prisoners don't want to change and they won't change. Those who do will take the initiative to do it on their own, they don't need anyone trying to "rehabilitate" them.

Why do you think this? It's an incredibly childish view. We currently have a prison system that creates career criminals. Even for offenders who "should" be in jail, shouldn't we consider reform?

[nandnor]

norway is already basically heaven on earth.. no wonder there are litterally no murderers there.

[speciallyblend]

The only steps in the right direction I'm interested in is a complete ban on capital punishment and a reduction in the largest prison population in the world. (The US)

word ,mr sunshine:)

[speciallyblend]

Yes, I agree.




Why do you think this? It's an incredibly childish view. We currently have a prison system that creates career criminals. Even for offenders who "should" be in jail, shouldn't we consider reform?

so right madfoot, bottom line is if you were not a criminal when you went to jail. there is a strong possibility you will be by the time you get out!!! In america a strong majority should never be in a prison on trumped up bs drug charges while they kick out murderers and violent criminals to make room for non-violent drug crimes!!

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Our crime rates will go down when the non-crimes, such as drugs, stop being crimes. Prison would be reserved for those who actually harmed people. Lets be real here, most prisoners don't want to change and they won't change. Those who do will take the initiative to do it on their own, they don't need anyone trying to "rehabilitate" them. And even if it is more expensive, rapists, murders, and the like should be locked up and suffer for their actions. Even if we could force rehabilitate people, they did something that infringed on the rights of another person. Why should we send them to prison for a few years, and then let them enjoy the rights and freedoms that they took away from someone else. Some people deserve to be punished for what they did, and that punishment needs to be as cheap and bad as possible.

Another psychotic idea that's very revealing of character, or lack there of. What's the point of punishment? Revenge? Isn't that what we are trying to prevent in the first place? So we must act like animals to prevent others from acting like animals. War is peace, up is down and you're not a sadistic maniac. As libertarians, I think we can do better than that.

[fisharmor]

And even if it is more expensive, rapists, murders, and the like should be locked up and suffer for their actions.

Ok, so just to be clear....
You're in favor of the state treating rape, murder, and the like as primarily offenses against the state,
you're ok with the state taking money from us by force to incarcerate them,
and you're ok with the idea of using our justice system to exact revenge for offenses against the state, and leaving the rape victim and murder victim's family to go fuck themselves.

[PreDeadMan]

Prison should only be for those that are too dangerous to be let out back into society.

in that case 99 % of the government should be in prisons haha....

[goldencane]

Ok, so just to be clear....
You're in favor of the state treating rape, murder, and the like as primarily offenses against the state,
you're ok with the state taking money from us by force to incarcerate them,
and you're ok with the idea of using our justice system to exact revenge for offenses against the state, and leaving the rape victim and murder victim's family to go fuck themselves.


Do you think these people should be able to run around freely? We can't exactly have private prisons, so really the only option is to have the state run the prisons. These people did not commit crimes against the state, they infringed on the rights of other people. Vigilante justice is not any place for free living.

[goldencane]

Another psychotic idea that's very revealing of character, or lack there of. What's the point of punishment? Revenge? Isn't that what we are trying to prevent in the first place? So we must act like animals to prevent others from acting like animals. War is peace, up is down and you're not a sadistic maniac. As libertarians, I think we can do better than that.

Anyone who studies psychology or sociology knows that the best way to change a persons behavior is the threat of negative consequences. If people are not punished, nothing will change. Do you think rapist and murderers should be able to run around freely with little to no consequences?

[trey4sports]

Anyone who studies psychology or sociology knows that the best way to change a persons behavior is the threat of negative consequences. If people are not punished, nothing will change. Do you think rapist and murderers should be able to run around freely with little to no consequences?

Prove it.


I think you're making a big generalization in saying that "Anyone who studies psychology or sociology knows that the best way to change a persons behavior is the threat of negative consequences."

[Vessol]

Anyone who studies psychology or sociology knows that the best way to change a persons behavior is the threat of negative consequences. If people are not punished, nothing will change. Do you think rapist and murderers should be able to run around freely with little to no consequences?

B.F. Skinner would like to have a discussion with you.

[fisharmor]

Do you think these people should be able to run around freely? We can't exactly have private prisons, so really the only option is to have the state run the prisons. These people did not commit crimes against the state, they infringed on the rights of other people. Vigilante justice is not any place for free living.

Anyone who studies psychology or sociology knows that the best way to change a persons behavior is the threat of negative consequences. If people are not punished, nothing will change. Do you think rapist and murderers should be able to run around freely with little to no consequences?

I'll give you a chance to go back and review what I already wrote in response to these concerns.

[goldencane]

Prove it.



B.F. Skinner would like to have a discussion with you.

Poor wording on my part, I was talking about getting rid of negative behavior. Nearly every psychologist, including Skinner, will tell you that the best was to get rid of negative behavior is through punishment. Of course you need positive reenforcement in conjunction to teach the person the right way. I should not have stated that the way I did, it is really a chicken and egg type thing. However, through all of the psychology courses I took, the professors and most articles we read about the subject said that punishment comes first and with out that you can not begin to build the person back up. I am not going to take the time to find all of those sources. It does not bother me if you don't believe the same thing.


I'll give you a chance to go back and review what I already wrote in response to these concerns.

I do agree with you mostly, I have been considering restitution to be a form of punishment. Maybe I have not been using the appropriate term. It is really just punishment imposed by the victim. I think that should exist. Part of me wants restitution to happen in conjunction with traditional punishment though. Maybe I don't fully understand what you are saying, but I don't think someone should get away scot free if the victim doesn't want any restitution. That would allow the person to go do it to someone else.

[dannno]

Anyone who studies psychology or sociology knows that the best way to change a persons behavior is the threat of negative consequences. If people are not punished, nothing will change. Do you think rapist and murderers should be able to run around freely with little to no consequences?

You still haven't seen the clip I posted earlier. This is all completely debunked.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285602-Michael-Moore-visits-a-quot-prison-of-the-future-quot-in-Norway.&p=3184152#post3184152

[madfoot]

Poor wording on my part, I was talking about getting rid of negative behavior. Nearly every psychologist, including Skinner, will tell you that the best was to get rid of negative behavior is through punishment. Of course you need positive reenforcement in conjunction to teach the person the right way. I should not have stated that the way I did, it is really a chicken and egg type thing. However, through all of the psychology courses I took, the professors and most articles we read about the subject said that punishment comes first and with out that you can not begin to build the person back up. I am not going to take the time to find all of those sources. It does not bother me if you don't believe the same thing.

The Norway system doesn't represent a lack of negative reinforcement. It's just rehabilitation-based and not revenge-based. It's not like they're rewarding murderers.


Do you think these people should be able to run around freely? We can't exactly have private prisons, so really the only option is to have the state run the prisons. These people did not commit crimes against the state, they infringed on the rights of other people. Vigilante justice is not any place for free living.

If we're working with the premise that the government needs to have a role in crime enforcement, and not private organizations, I'd rather have my money going towards a more compassionate and more efficient system. What's the point of making criminals dig holes and break rocks.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I'll give you a chance to go back and review what I already wrote in response to these concerns.

I agree with everyone you have said. I believe restitution is the best form of punishment. I mean, you can't bring someone back from the dead, so a murder will obviously pay a pretty hefty sum in restitution to the victim's family. But on the other hand, I think the victim or the victims family should have a say in how the offender is treated post conviction.

I do agree we live in a sick society and if the government ended so many things, many many crimes would disappear. But I won't hold my breath. I do agree prisons are horrible places and if you aren't a nonviolent offender, you will be by the time you leave prison, or you at least have a much greater chance of being so.

[goldencane]

You still haven't seen the clip I posted earlier. This is all completely debunked.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285602-Michael-Moore-visits-a-quot-prison-of-the-future-quot-in-Norway.&p=3184152#post3184152

I agree with almost everything in that video. I don't see what it has to do with punishment being an effective way to get rid of an unwanted behavior though. If you read what i posted after, I admitted i worded what i said poorly and maybe unfairly, but from everything I have learned, punishment must happen before rehabilitation.



The Norway system doesn't represent a lack of negative reinforcement. It's just rehabilitation-based and not revenge-based. It's not like they're rewarding murderers.



If we're working with the premise that the government needs to have a role in crime enforcement, and not private organizations, I'd rather have my money going towards a more compassionate and more efficient system. What's the point of making criminals dig holes and break rocks.

Do you really think a prison like that would work here? Norway has a homogeneous population and few gangs, among other things. People here would commit crimes to go live in a place like that, heck people here already commit crimes because prison puts a roof over their head and food in their mouth. I don't have a problem with prisoners working, I think they should work. And I don't think they should have to do pointless labor, then we would have to pay guards and buy equipment. I don't see how 1000sf apartments help with rehabilitation though. I think having guards treating them respectively and allowing them to work to pay for themselves, while maybe learning a new trade will get the same job done. In the end, as long as they are costing us as little money as possible I am happy.

[madfoot]

Do you really think a prison like that would work here?

Yes. Isn't this the greatest country on earth? :P

[Vessol]

Why are we debating the various merits of different State-Run Kidnapping Facilities?

They're all evil and are funded through the coercive violent means of taxation.

[Kregisen]

Add psychopath to a chain gang for the rest of his life, make him work his ass off for 16 hours a day, and send all profits to the victim or victim's family:
-as good a chance of preventing him from doing it again as prison
-victim actually gets something out of it besides a bullshit apology in court from offender
-someone else benefits from the cheap labor or other service rendered by the offender
-nobody else is killed
-this sends the message that the victim is actually the victim, and that the state isn't the primary victim here

How is this not a valid solution? How is it not punishment? How is it not GREATER punishment than what is currently done, which is to put them in a giant criminal career center for a couple years and let them go?

If it's possible to have a criminal repay for his actions I'm all for it. But what happens if a criminal refuses to work 16 hours a day? What are you gonna do, throw him in prison? ;)

On top of that, even putting prisoners in chain gangs, what's your point? How are they going to make enough money to repay the victims? The state has to pay for their transportation to do work, it has to pay for their equipment, it has to pay for supervision, etc. I'm not sure where you're getting your "profits" from.

[Kregisen]

Why are we debating the various merits of different State-Run Kidnapping Facilities?

They're all evil and are funded through the coercive violent means of taxation.

What is the anarchist's view when someone infringes on the rights of others i.e. murder? Does everyone have the right to take matters in their own hands without a state and enact revenge on the murderer, or is the murderer free?

[fisharmor]

If it's possible to have a criminal repay for his actions I'm all for it. But what happens if a criminal refuses to work 16 hours a day? What are you gonna do, throw him in prison? ;)
Wouldn't you agree that the entity least well equipped to figure out how to do it is the state?
Here's a couple off the top of my head: 10 men in a chain, if any one doesn't work then none get dinner.
Men who work in the sun get long sleeves and a straw hat. Men who don't go hatless and shirtless.
And as I said before, others have already figured this out a thousand times over, and it never included prison.


On top of that, even putting prisoners in chain gangs, what's your point? How are they going to make enough money to repay the victims? The state has to pay for their transportation to do work, it has to pay for their equipment, it has to pay for supervision, etc. I'm not sure where you're getting your "profits" from. Are there day laborer lines where you live?
Seems to me like a lot of those guys are doing really shitty work - the kind of job you could get a chain working on with one phone call.
There's absolutely economic incentive to use forced labor.
Sure, once you take out their FICA and medicare the profits start to dwindle... :rolleyes:
but the base numbers are there for turning a profit.

[Kregisen]

Wouldn't you agree that the entity least well equipped to figure out how to do it is the state?
Here's a couple off the top of my head: 10 men in a chain, if any one doesn't work then none get dinner.
Men who work in the sun get long sleeves and a straw hat. Men who don't go hatless and shirtless.
And as I said before, others have already figured this out a thousand times over, and it never included prison.

Are there day laborer lines where you live?
Seems to me like a lot of those guys are doing really shitty work - the kind of job you could get a chain working on with one phone call.
There's absolutely economic incentive to use forced labor.
Sure, once you take out their FICA and medicare the profits start to dwindle... :rolleyes:
but the base numbers are there for turning a profit.

lol what kind of profit are you even talking about? I would bet money that it costs the government more money to transport and oversee a chain gang than the chain gang could earn in revenue, assuming someone was offering to pay for work.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

ugh - huge NO from me.

I don't want cozy prisons. I want prisons to be for punishment. I care very little about rehabilitation.

What I do want for prison reform here is to clear out all the prisoners charged with victimless crimes - and just punish the violent offenders. Severely. There should be lots of excess room available then.

The video talked about a prisoner charged with double murder with a chainsaw. A freakin' chainsaw. And he's living in that cozy place - with only a four year sentence. Insane. The two people he killed lives are gone forever. There is no second chance for them. I think he should be in jail - and miserable - forever.

For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

[pcosmar]

What is the anarchist's view when someone infringes on the rights of others i.e. murder? Does everyone have the right to take matters in their own hands without a state and enact revenge on the murderer, or is the murderer free?

Who is discussing an anarchist's view?

I thought this was a discussion of the abject failure of the present stateist system
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm


For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men.15 Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions — the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim.16 Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state — but for their own vindication.17 The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person.18 A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding.19 When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name — even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.20

[Kregisen]

Who is discussing an anarchist's view?

Ummm I am. You just quoted my post of me asking what an anarchist's views on it are....

[pcosmar]

Ummm I am. You just quoted my post of me asking what an anarchist's views on it are....

I wouldn't know. (not an anarchist)
I sort of thought anarchists did not recognize authority or laws.
So why ask the question? Why not just state the anarchist position?

I posted a piece dealing with criminal prosecution and Law enforcement under a limited Government.

It is my personal view that jails should be expensive to the society and rarely used except in extreme cases.
I further believe that those incarcerated should be treated humanely, and if they are ever to be released that they should be prepared/educated to rejoin society. (rehabilitation)
Putting people in cages and abusing them only results in releasing violent animals back into society.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

If I murder someone then I expect to be judged and punished harshly. I don't expect the state to rehabilitate me. I don't expect the state to provide me with cozy accomodations.

Yes, I know it's easy to say that since I'm not in jail - but if I hypothetical did commit some violent crime - and then became a hypocritical sell-out to the above - well, that would just reflect badly (even more so) on my character.

[Theocrat]

The only steps in the right direction I'm interested in is a complete ban on capital punishment and a reduction in the largest prison population in the world. (The US)

Those two steps are at odds with each other. In other words, they can't both occur simultaneously at the same time. If we don't have capital punishment for some crimes, then the alternative step will be an increase in the prison population (unless you're insinuating that the entire U.S. is a prison...).

[dannno]

Those two steps are at odds with each other. In other words, they can't both occur simultaneously at the same time. If we don't have capital punishment for some crimes, then the alternative step will be an increase in the prison population (unless you're insinuating that the entire U.S. is a prison...).

He wants to end the war on drugs and other victimless crimes to decrease the prison population, since about half the people in jail are there for non-violent drug related crimes.

[pcosmar]

Those two steps are at odds with each other. In other words, they can't both occur simultaneously at the same time. If we don't have capital punishment for some crimes, then the alternative step will be an increase in the prison population (unless you're insinuating that the entire U.S. is a prison...).

You are missing a very distinct and obvious 3rd option. Eliminate a whole lot of laws. This will reduce the prison populations immediately and free both space and resources for those that actually need to be contained.
And further by readdressing the Police Industrial complex, and the corruption of the legal "system" would reduce false accusation and conviction.

[Kregisen]

I wouldn't know. (not an anarchist)

Umm...then don't answer? Did I specifically ask you? No. In fact, I believe I quoted an anarchist when I asked my question.....lol are you okay? Get some sleep or something.

I sort of thought anarchists did not recognize authority or laws.

So why ask the question? Why not just state the anarchist position?

To get an answer? Maybe? Possibly? Are there other reasons to ask a question?

??

[pcosmar]

Are there other reasons to ask a question?

??

Yes, there are.
To derail a thread.
To push an alternate ideology.
As troll bait or just to be an ass.

I really don't care what an anarchists fantasy is.
I would like to see a return to a limited (Constitutional) government. Certainly a step back from the socialist system we presently have and the one discussed in this thread.
Not the abolition of all government.

[Kregisen]

Yes, there are.
To derail a thread.
To push an alternate ideology.
As troll bait or just to be an ass.

I really don't care what an anarchists fantasy is.
I would like to see a return to a limited (Constitutional) government. Certainly a step back from the socialist system we presently have and the one discussed in this thread.
Not the abolition of all government.

Oh my god grow up. An anarchist posted that all methods of prison are evil. I asked him what an anarchist's position on this issue is...it doesn't even concern you. Do you really have nothing better to do than start shit with someone on the internet over nothing?

[pcosmar]

Oh my god grow up. An anarchist posted that all methods of prison are evil. I asked him what an anarchist's position on this issue is...it doesn't even concern you. Do you really have nothing better to do than start shit with someone on the internet over nothing?

I am less concerned with someone's fantasy than I am with realities.

I have lived in Maximum, Medium and Minimum security Prisons as well as County Jails in a couple different states.
This is an issue that concerns me personally and that I have a little first hand experience with. (rather than theoretical fantasy)

Grow up yourself. I'm grown.

[madfoot]

Those two steps are at odds with each other. In other words, they can't both occur simultaneously at the same time. If we don't have capital punishment for some crimes, then the alternative step will be an increase in the prison population (unless you're insinuating that the entire U.S. is a prison...).

False dichotomy. There's plenty of other methods available.

*Decriminalizations
*Prevention
*Rehabilitation

[madfoot]

I am less concerned with someone's fantasy than I am with realities.

I have lived in Maximum, Medium and Minimum security Prisons as well as County Jails in a couple different states.
This is an issue that concerns me personally and that I have a little first hand experience with. (rather than theoretical fantasy)

Grow up yourself. I'm grown.

Err I'm annoyed at Kreigsen, so I'm surprised I'm defending him. But he specifically asked an anarchist what the anarchist approach to law enforcement is. It was an ideological question, not one for anyone to answer. >_>

[Vessol]

I wouldn't know. (not an anarchist)
I sort of thought anarchists did not recognize authority or laws.
So why ask the question? Why not just state the anarchist position?


Not quite. I, as an anarchist reject the monopoly on laws and violence that the State holds. I do not think that laws or authority are wrong, nor do I reject them. However, I feel that giving the State a monopoly of what is wrong or right and then being the only ones able to enforce it doesn't always turn out well.


What is the anarchist's view when someone infringes on the rights of others i.e. murder? Does everyone have the right to take matters in their own hands without a state and enact revenge on the murderer, or is the murderer free?

Why do I have to sit here constantly trying to solve problems that people present to me? It doesn't matter what I say, you won't agree with me and you'll either rebuttal me or you will nitpick something else I said and ask me about that.

It's nothing personal, and I don't mind delving into discussions about how to solve problems. But, I don't answer questions when they are stated as "Well, what is X's view of this and how would it be solved!?" I don't speak for anarchists, I only speak for myself.

If you want to discuss problems, first we must agree with what is a problem and then we can go forward on discussing what a solution is. You can't discuss the solution if you don't agree what the problem is. Ever tried that with a significant other? It doesn't work, everyone gets all huffy, and it wastes time.