PDA

View Full Version : Reason: Are prisons 'rape factories'?




madfoot
06-23-2011, 04:22 PM
http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/20/rape-factories

dannno
06-23-2011, 04:32 PM
Yes they are, and it should stop.

I don't feel as bad for the child predators who end up getting raped, but I still disagree that it should happen, a good reason being the first example cited in that article.

HOLLYWOOD
06-23-2011, 04:43 PM
Sexual violence is not an inevitable part of prison life...

So let me get this correct, you can go to prison for decades for rape, but rape in prison is just part of the punishment?

what a paradox, the government calls it the Department of Corrections?

flightlesskiwi
06-23-2011, 04:51 PM
from the article


While serving time for attempted embezzlement in a Michigan prison in 1998, Lastocy was raped. Not once, not twice, but several times a week for seven months. The rapist was an officer who supervised her at a prison warehouse. Lastocy was so afraid of him that she did not even dare to tell her husband of 30 years, John, what was going on.

not surprising. sickening still. (not the embezzlement part, the part that a non-violent attempted criminal was repeatedly raped by a man legally able to hold her captive over the course of seven months)

heavenlyboy34
06-23-2011, 04:58 PM
Ah, prisons/justice-another failed government "industry".

Acala
06-23-2011, 05:00 PM
Even putting aside the vast number of people in prison for non-crimes, the whole system is built on the flawed concept of punishment.

The justice system should have two function: obtaining restitution for victims (if no victim then no crime) and ejecting from society (by transportation a la the old UK) those who have been proven to be unable to live in a free society without preying on others.

heavenlyboy34
06-23-2011, 05:21 PM
Even putting aside the vast number of people in prison for non-crimes, the whole system is built on the flawed concept of punishment.

The justice system should have two function: obtaining restitution for victims (if no victim then no crime) and ejecting from society (by transportation a la the old UK) those who have been proven to be unable to live in a free society without preying on others.
qft.

cameronb
06-23-2011, 05:50 PM
Even putting aside the vast number of people in prison for non-crimes, the whole system is built on the flawed concept of punishment.

The justice system should have two function: obtaining restitution for victims (if no victim then no crime) and ejecting from society (by transportation a la the old UK) those who have been proven to be unable to live in a free society without preying on others.

transportation/ejection to where?

dannno
06-23-2011, 06:02 PM
transportation/ejection to where?

A prison, perhaps on an island.

pcosmar
06-23-2011, 06:40 PM
Actually they are more of a Gladiator School.

Rape is just one of the possible consequences. Death is another very real possibility.

Survival is also possible.


Fuck, Fight or Hit the Fence
prison saying

madfoot
06-23-2011, 06:44 PM
A prison, perhaps on an island.

So your alternative to the prison system is a prison system?

ClayTrainor
06-23-2011, 08:07 PM
So your alternative to the prison system is a prison system?

Cages are for beasts. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux3.html)

dannno
06-23-2011, 08:12 PM
So your alternative to the prison system is a prison system?

It's an intellectual shift on what a prison is. Once I have depleted my need for self defense against someone trying to cause me harm (the perpetrator is captured, then tried, then convicted) I no longer have the moral authority to cause injury to them. Putting them in a situation where they will likely be beaten and raped is wrong. They don't need to be treated like kings, but they should be treated respectably.

Acala
06-24-2011, 10:48 AM
transportation/ejection to where?

Pick an island somewhere. Or some obscure corner of a large continent. Give them some gardening tools, some seeds, some canned tuna, maybe a pamphlet on trapping small animals, and wish them well.

Once somebody has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to be part of a free society - draw the line wherever you wish - they can be ejected. Where they land is not my problem.
But I would be willing to spend a little to make sure they at least have a chance of survival.

pcosmar
06-24-2011, 10:56 AM
Pick an island somewhere. Or some obscure corner of a large continent. Give them some gardening tools, some seeds, some canned tuna, maybe a pamphlet on trapping small animals, and wish them well.
.
That has been done. Australia and the US are results.
But I disagree with that plan. Prisons should be a burden and expense, and therefore used only as a necessary last resort for those that absolutely need to be caged. And prisoners should still be treated humanely and with the possibility of redemption.

Less laws and alternatives to prison should be the focus of reforms. As well as an equal playing field in the judicial system.

Acala
06-24-2011, 11:09 AM
That has been done. Australia and the US are results.
But I disagree with that plan. Prisons should be a burden and expense, and therefore used only as a necessary last resort for those that absolutely need to be caged. And prisoners should still be treated humanely and with the possibility of redemption.

Less laws and alternatives to prison should be the focus of reforms. As well as an equal playing field in the judicial system.

I think Australia was a pretty good option for criminals compared to sitting in an iron box for the rest of their lives.

As I said, one of the functions of the justice system should be making a determination as to who cannot be trusted to live in a free society without preying on others. Unfortunately, there ARE such people. What are YOU going to do with them? I am not willing to allow them to run free in my community. Nor am I willing to pay to house them in some cushy rehab facility. Serial knife-point rapists have to leave. Same with people who kill other people to take their money. Same with people who can't seem to stop breaking into other people's houses to steal their belongings. Sorry if that neglects the very small chance that they will be rehabilitated. At some point, they have to leave. You can put them in front of a firing squad if you prefer. I favor sending them somewhere they can at least have a chance of building a life and a society that works for them. But at some point some types of behavior earn the person a boot out the door.

Now maybe, if some private property owner wants to house these folks and never allow them to leave the property, and the convict chose that option, I might be okay with that. But that would essentially be a private max prison because nothing else could be trusted to hold them in. So you are back to cages again.

pcosmar
06-24-2011, 11:27 AM
So you are back to cages again.

Well you always will be. Unless you believe in some kind of social engineering to eliminate any crime.
I have no such hopes.
Add to that there are different types of crime. A serial killer is quite different that someone that kills in a fit of rage. While the psychotic maniac likely can not be reformed, the person that had a momentary lapse likely could be.
Same with theft, there is a difference between someone that steals because they are hungry and those that prey on others because they can.

Also remember that there limited space to exile people to. Australia became a civilized nation despite starting as a penal colony. (proof of concept/redemption)

I believe that Prisons will always be necessary due to human nature. How they are run and how often they are used is another question, and one that could use reform.

and these are my thought as someone that has actually lived inside one.

Acala
06-24-2011, 11:49 AM
Well you always will be. Unless you believe in some kind of social engineering to eliminate any crime.
I have no such hopes.
Add to that there are different types of crime. A serial killer is quite different that someone that kills in a fit of rage. While the psychotic maniac likely can not be reformed, the person that had a momentary lapse likely could be.
Same with theft, there is a difference between someone that steals because they are hungry and those that prey on others because they can.

Also remember that there limited space to exile people to. Australia became a civilized nation despite starting as a penal colony. (proof of concept/redemption)

I believe that Prisons will always be necessary due to human nature. How they are run and how often they are used is another question, and one that could use reform.

and these are my thought as someone that has actually lived inside one.

I agree with much of what you say. A single act of violence in the heat of passion does not necessarily mean a person is unfit for a free society. They make restitution and move on. Although a pretty good argument can be made that the only restitution for murder is the death of the murderer. As for theft, someone who steals a loaf of bread once to feed his children is one thing. On the other hand, someone who steals continually as a way of life can't be tolerated. I also think that someone who deliberately and credibly threatens the lives of innocents to get their money has demonstrated such a dangerous disregard for the life and property of his neighbors that he is also no longer welcome. He might later change his ways, but the danger he has presented is too great to chance it, in my opinion.

I don't see how transporting people to a distant land involves cages. And it solves the problem I am concerned about - expelling habitual and dangerous criminals. If their land gets over-crowded or they have to institute prisons, so be it. To quote someone whose name I can't remember, that falls within my favorite category: not my problem.

In any event, I am not interested in operating a zoo for violent humans nor am I interested in experimenting with trying to reprogram people who have demonstrated an ingrained habit of preying on others.

pcosmar
06-24-2011, 11:57 AM
I don't see how transporting people to a distant land involves cages. And it solves the problem I am concerned about - expelling habitual and dangerous criminals. If their land gets over-crowded or they have to institute prisons, so be it. To quote someone whose name I can't remember, that falls within my favorite category: not my problem.


So you would be alright with dumping them on someone else, as it's no longer your problem?

Sort of like Cuba did in the Mariel Boat lift.

There are few areas of the world (survivable areas) that are not inhabited.

:(

Philhelm
06-24-2011, 12:25 PM
I think the fit prisoners should be trained as law enforcement. I'd imagine that given a second chance, they'd probably do much better than our current law enforcers... I'm only half kidding.

Acala
06-24-2011, 02:19 PM
So you would be alright with dumping them on someone else, as it's no longer your problem?

Sort of like Cuba did in the Mariel Boat lift.

There are few areas of the world (survivable areas) that are not inhabited.

:(

There is plenty of space on the planet. You could buy the Falkland Islands for a fraction of what we spend incarcerating people. Lots of islands in the south pacific too. You could even BUILD an island like they are doing in the Persian Gulf for far less than our prison system costs.

Remember, we aren't talking about most of the massive US prison population.

pcosmar
06-24-2011, 02:42 PM
Remember, we aren't talking about most of the massive US prison population.

Ah,
:confused:

what are we talking about again?
I am a firm believer in local law enforcement. I rather doubt that the village of Brimley Michigan could afford to buy an Island in the Falklands to exile miscreants.
or even Chippewa County for that matter.

or were you talking about some Central "authority" doing this?
I sort of thought this was a discussion of the present "System", and alternatives to the worlds largest prison population. (several million people)

eworthington
06-24-2011, 02:43 PM
It doesn't seem practical to try to find or purchase an uninhabited place and deport people to it for committing crimes; for one thing, you will have to keep the people from returning -- Australia worked as a penal colony because it was much harder to travel in the 18th century.

I think prisons should be humane places. Nobody deserves to raped, and nobody can say they are exacting justice by molesting someone (even if the victim is a child molester). Prisoners should have to perform labor and perhaps supply their own foodstuffs, but they should not be expected to submit to someone's sadistic fantasies. The reason for locking someone up is to remove them from society for a period of time (perhaps the rest of their lives) to keep the public safe and to reform the person so that they can be productive members of society.

I do agree that we need to empty most of the prisons; people shouldn't be locked up unless they are a danger to society. Many crimes should be settled in court or arbitration through compensation, fines, and parole.

Acala
06-24-2011, 03:13 PM
Ah,
:confused:

what are we talking about again?
I am a firm believer in local law enforcement. I rather doubt that the village of Brimley Michigan could afford to buy an Island in the Falklands to exile miscreants.
or even Chippewa County for that matter.

or were you talking about some Central "authority" doing this?
I sort of thought this was a discussion of the present "System", and alternatives to the worlds largest prison population. (several million people)

I suppose there are a number of ways we could approach the discussion. If you want to talk about tweaking the existing system, then you release all victimless criminals, release all one-time non-violent offenders, release all the inmates who can make restitution to their victims, and then keep the rest. The remaining inmates you put to work supporting the system. But I think the existing system is rotten to the core and needs to be torn down.

If you want to discuss the transition to a hypothetical minimalist state, I would propose what I already posted. The States and local communtiies get together, pool their resources, acquire the needed land, and ship off the criminals.

If you want to talk about a totally free society, then you have something like the following:

All property is private in this scenario. As a property owner, I can exclude anyone I want for any reason I want. I, like most people, will choose to exclude violent criminals. I will also choose to live in a community of people that share my values and we will likely all choose to exclude violent criminals from our property. We will also likely hire a security force to do what ever is required to keep the violent criminals off our property. That is essentially the end of MY problem. But what will that look like in the larger scenario? Will the next town over exclude violent criminals? Probably. Will there be any community in which the property owners allow violent criminals? Maybe. If so, such communities will become havens for violent criminals. But that might work out fine as they might set up communities that are well-designed for handling violent criminals. Rather like prisons designed and operated by the criminals. Of course if they become hideouts from which raids are conducted on the neighbors, it is likely they will be exterminated. What if some criminals are excluded from EVERYONE'S property? Then that is tough shit for them. It will, essentially, be a free market for levels of tolerance for criminals. People who NOBODY tolerates will, in effect, be transported by the aggregate action of individual property owners because they will have nowhere to place their foot..

Acala
06-24-2011, 03:27 PM
It doesn't seem practical to try to find or purchase an uninhabited place and deport people to it for committing crimes; for one thing, you will have to keep the people from returning -- Australia worked as a penal colony because it was much harder to travel in the 18th century. .

I think I could devise a way to make convicted violent criminals distinguishable from the honest folk such that they would have a hard time infiltrating a free society again. Remember, we are talking about people who have been found, through all the due process you want, to be unable to live among free people. A face tattoo, perhaps.


I think prisons should be humane places. Nobody deserves to raped, and nobody can say they are exacting justice by molesting someone (even if the victim is a child molester). Prisoners should have to perform labor and perhaps supply their own foodstuffs, but they should not be expected to submit to someone's sadistic fantasies. .

I agree to some extent. Except that I don't think anyone should be going to prison unless they are never coming out again. I reject prison as punishment. In fact I reject the goal of punishment at all. If you think a particular criminal can be trusted to be back in society, let him back in society. Make him pay restitution, clean his record, and let him go live his life. Locking him up doesn't do anything positive.


The reason for locking someone up is to remove them from society for a period of time (perhaps the rest of their lives) to keep the public safe.

I agree that the system should be designed to decide who is a threat and who is not. But if a person is a threat, locking them in a cage for a few years isn't going to make him NOT a threat. If anything it makes him worse. So why do it? You either decide they can be trusted to be free (in which case you let them go) or they can't (in which case you NEVER let them go). Statistics pretty well prove that prison doesn't make honest citizens out of criminals.


and to reform the person so that they can be productive members of society..


Locking someone in a cage does not do this. Again, either they can be trusted to be free or not. If you think they can be free and you want to give them a helping hand, great! When you let them go you can direct them to a charity. But locking them up isn't going to reform them.


I do agree that we need to empty most of the prisons; people shouldn't be locked up unless they are a danger to society. Many crimes should be settled in court or arbitration through compensation, fines, and parole.

Agreed. People should not be locked up unless they are a danger. And then they should stay there because being locked up typically doesn't make dangerous people less dangerous. But that is expensive. So they should either work or be deported. I consider deportation more humane than being in a work camp and a cage my whole life.

pcosmar
06-24-2011, 03:35 PM
Locking someone in a cage does not do this. Again, either they can be trusted to be free or not. If you think they can be free and you want to give them a helping hand, great! When you let them go you can direct them to a charity. But locking them up isn't going to reform them.
How do you explain me then?

or the percentage of folks that do reform.??

(though I am still considered "dangerous" by some,,not by those that know me)

Acala
06-24-2011, 04:02 PM
How do you explain me then?

or the percentage of folks that do reform.??

(though I am still considered "dangerous" by some,,not by those that know me)

Would you say that it was being locked in a cage that changed your direction? Or was it something else?

If so, you are in the minority. Locking people up is demonstrably NOT a reliable way of making dangerous people non-dangerous. The statisitcs are clear about that. And, frankly, people shouldn't be required to try and figure out whether proven predators are done being predators. Proven predators should be excludable from a community. Maybe there should be a way for them to have their own community.

pcosmar
06-24-2011, 04:12 PM
Would you say that it was being locked in a cage that changed your direction? Or was it something else?

If so, you are in the minority. Locking people up is demonstrably NOT a reliable way of making dangerous people non-dangerous. The statisitcs are clear about that. And, frankly, people shouldn't be required to try and figure out whether proven predators are done being predators. Proven predators should be excludable from a community. Maybe there should be a way for them to have their own community.

Being locked up for a time very likely saved my life. Gave me time to think, and to learn, and to consider my choices.

That being said, some of my other experiences,,,I would not recommend.
It is true that the present system is rotten to the core.

Acala
06-24-2011, 04:19 PM
Being locked up for a time very likely saved my life. Gave me time to think, and to learn, and to consider my choices.



I'm REALLY, REALLY glad Bro!:)

pcosmar
06-24-2011, 04:25 PM
I'm REALLY, REALLY glad Bro!:)

:D
Me too,,most days.
And yes, I am a minority. in several ways. I am an individual.

but then,,that is the point.

dannno
06-24-2011, 04:25 PM
Being locked up for a time very likely saved my life. Gave me time to think, and to learn, and to consider my choices.

That being said, some of my other experiences,,,I would not recommend.
It is true that the present system is rotten to the core.

The US should use Nova Scotia's prison system as a model.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFLg7hchZw

AFPVet
06-24-2011, 04:31 PM
They should get rid of prisons all together. There are alternative methods of punishment.

Johncjackson
06-24-2011, 06:05 PM
They should get rid of prisons all together. There are alternative methods of punishment.

Yeah. Restitution and Caning should about cover it.

eworthington
06-25-2011, 07:12 AM
Acala,

I don't think it is fair to completely discount rehabilitation because it is currently more-or-less ineffective. With all the problems we have with sexual violence, overcrowding, and letting gangs roam freely, it is probably hard for the most determined person to get their life in order. If corrections took prison crime seriously, and if the government stopped imprisoning people who are not a threat, rehabilitation might have a better record -- it is certainly cheaper to help a person reform himself than it is to lock them up humanly for life.

Prisons don't necessarily have to be cages either; work farms might provide an environment more conducive to rehabilitation.