• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prison reform

Which of the following reforms do our prisons need?

  • None; prisoners are sub-human scum who don't deserve even the most basic rights

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    33
How is a fine more cost efficient than the stocks? A set of stocks requires little in the way of maintenance, no administrative overhead, no bureaucracy....they are simplicity itself.

You spank children when they start acting ugly.....who's to say the practice should be stopped merely because they attain legal majority?

No question in my mind that part of the problem is caused by "parents" who cannot or will not spank...
As I say, we do need more intelligent people...
 
Why should anyone have any sympathy for these people?

Because a person convicted of the non-violent crime of grand theft auto or shoplifting shouldn't have to face five years of corporal punishment and rape.
 
Because a person convicted of the non-violent crime of grand theft auto or shoplifting shouldn't have to face five years of corporal punishment and rape.

While I agree with the corporal punishment and rape aspect being wrong(and not as much of a problem as people think I don't believe), outside of that, I have no sympathy for the criminal. If you commit a crime, you should be subject to the punishment the law calls for. When you make the decision to commit an act illegal in the US, you are responsible for any punishment you receive. Saying "oh, but it's not a violent crime", or "no one was hurt" gets no sympathy from me. You chose to accept the risk in exchange for the reward.
 
I don't know. House arrest seems pretty damned cushy. Is house arrest the usual sentence for those convicted of massive investor fraud?

No, but if we're talking about changing the usual sentence, it seems like a good place to start.


In general, I agree, but there are drug crimes and there are drug crimes. The guy caught with an eighth in his pocket is entirely different than the guy caught with a cigarette boat full of bud off the Florida Keys. Still, there has to be some sort of punishment for breaking a possession law... (or, we could decriminalize bud for personal use, but I suppose that's asking too much). :wink:

In NYC possession of up to 30 or so grams is only a "violation" that comes with a $100 ticket.

In my world that bolded part up there would read: "Execution should be reserved for rapists, child molesters, murderers, and some robbers/assailants, and we don't use it often enough."

Provocative? Yes! (I'm complicated that way.) I have compassion for most folks, but not for that list up there. And that sort of plays into your argument that we shouldn't be housing the deadly violent types with those who don't pose a physical threat to others - neither of us thinks they belong together, but I'd remove them from all equations entirely and forever. This also frees up prison space and resources that would be better used on those that have at least a chance of rehabilitation, and lessens the chance of inmate-on-inmate violence.

Interestingly enough, all of those types of criminals are more rehab-able than your average thief.

I was specific to violent criminals. Prisoners with a history of violence or gang affiliations should never be allowed to commingle openly with one another. Your misplaced compassion for their mental health puts others in grave danger. The "yard" is rife with gang fights, attempted assassinations, violent assaults, drug dealing, and is usually the flash point for most prison riots. The idea that dozens of people with a predilection for violence should be allowed to openly and freely associate with one another is ludicrous in the extreme. There are other ways for prisoners to interact and socialize.

I have to believe that there's a reason why they don't do this, and I would assume it's because they've considered it and determined that the benefits would be outweighed by the costs.

While I agree with the corporal punishment and rape aspect being wrong(and not as much of a problem as people think I don't believe), outside of that, I have no sympathy for the criminal. If you commit a crime, you should be subject to the punishment the law calls for. When you make the decision to commit an act illegal in the US, you are responsible for any punishment you receive. Saying "oh, but it's not a violent crime", or "no one was hurt" gets no sympathy from me. You chose to accept the risk in exchange for the reward.

But that's the point that kandahar is making - people should get the punishment they receive, which is time in prison. That does not include being raped/stabbed.
 
I have to believe that there's a reason why they don't do this, and I would assume it's because they've considered it and determined that the benefits would be outweighed by the costs.

No doubt you could be right, but I have a sneaking suspision it has nothing to do with efficacy and more to do with prisoner's rights advocates. Why do you suppose prisons have cable TV?
 
But that's the point that kandahar is making - people should get the punishment they receive, which is time in prison. That does not include being raped/stabbed.

Right, but the problem is not as bad as portrayed I don't think, and the fact there are some problems with prisons does not mean we should somehow let people get away with breaking the law. Decriminalizing is not a solution for prisons, improving prisons is.
 
I'm so glad nobody has picked none. Prison reform is an often overlooked political position that needs to be addressed. I voted for all of the reforms except for freeing the druggies. That was simply because the free druggie option was too vague. I only believe in the legalization of marijuana. Any people who offended that law should be set free. People illegally selling any hardcore substance such as heroine, cocaine, etc. should be kept locked up. People caught using the substances should be set free and put on programs to keep them off the drugs.
 
Right, but the problem is not as bad as portrayed I don't think, and the fact there are some problems with prisons does not mean we should somehow let people get away with breaking the law. Decriminalizing is not a solution for prisons, improving prisons is.

If you change the law, then it's not breaking it anymore.

And decriminalizing very minor things might be a way of improving prisons while also improving society and saving money.
 
If you change the law, then it's not breaking it anymore.

And decriminalizing very minor things might be a way of improving prisons while also improving society and saving money.

You first sentence is an obvious truth no one has questioned.

Your second sentence is something I think of in a different way. There is nothing wrong with re-examining laws and deciding which are needed and not. We should not do this with fixing prisons in mind...ir, the penal system should respond to the needs of the society, not the other way around.
 
You first sentence is an obvious truth no one has questioned.

Your second sentence is something I think of in a different way. There is nothing wrong with re-examining laws and deciding which are needed and not. We should not do this with fixing prisons in mind...ir, the penal system should respond to the needs of the society, not the other way around.

But the two are inextricably intertwined. The crime rate, spending, and the general welfare of society are directly related to both how the prison system is run and what activities are criminalized (and how).

If I were to argue that we should decriminalize marijuana because there are hundreds of thousands of people in jail for it, that's a response to the needs of society.
 
Last edited:
I think prisons should be treated the same way schools are treated. The better performance they have the more funding they should get. Then we should go further. If their performance does not improve then shut them down and build new ones. Guard and warden pays raises should go by how many assaults happen every year in their prisons. That will give them an incentive to minimize inmate on inmate violence.

The biggest source of violence in U.S. prisons is drugs. The more drugs in a prison. The more violence you're bound to see. This should also be taken into consideration when paying guards and wardens.

As far as white collar/non-violent crime goes. I don't think it should receive harsh prison terms. The people who commit them should be allowed to pay back and if they can't they should be put to work for the government for X number of years. Doing something like cleaning streets or building roads. If they don't want that. Off to jail.

I didn't vote on the one for drugs for a reason : I don't believe somebody who is moving 10-15 metric tons of heroin into the U.S. should get away with it when heroin kills thousands of people. The same goes for somebody who's creating drugs that are directly responsible for killing people.
 
Last edited:
I think prisons should be treated the same way schools are treated. The better performance they have the more funding they should get. Then we should go further. If their performance does not improve then shut them down and build new ones. Guard and warden pays raises should go by how many assaults happen every year in their prisons. That will give them an incentive to minimize inmate on inmate violence.

The biggest source of violence in U.S. prisons is drugs. The more drugs in a prison. The more violence you're bound to see. This should also be taken into consideration when paying guards and wardens.

As far as white collar/non-violent crime goes. I don't think it should receive harsh prison terms. The people who commit them should be allowed to pay back and if they can't they should be put to work for the government for X number of years. Doing something like cleaning streets or building roads. If they don't want that. Off to jail.

I didn't vote on the one for drugs for a reason : I don't believe somebody who is moving 10-15 metric tons of heroin into the U.S. should get away with it when heroin kills thousands of people. The same goes for somebody who's creating drugs that are directly responsible for killing people.

I like the idea of focusing money the way the school system does.

Guards' and wardens' behavior should definitely be checked into regularly. There is a lot of unnecessary violence prevalent in the prison systems committed by the guards. This is easily witnessed in the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted at Stanford University with college students:

Our planned two-week investigation into the psychology of prison life had to be ended prematurely after only six days because of what the situation was doing to the college students who participated. In only a few days, our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress.

Apparently the guards became degrading and violent. If you want to learn more go to: this website.

Of course, a lot of the violence would dissipate with proper prison reform.

I agree with you about the drug offenders who produce, sell, or smuggle any drug. It sort of reminds me of the AMC show "Breaking Bad".
 
I agree with you about the drug offenders who produce, sell, or smuggle any drug. It sort of reminds me of the AMC show "Breaking Bad".

Well marijuana is produced. I don't think the mere production of a drug should be grounds for sending somebody to jail. Hard drugs? That is a different story. I have never heard of a marijuana or shrooms overdose. I've heard of ecstasy overdoses, heroin overdoses, crack overdoses etc. I doubt many people here would be anywhere near okay with a company that produces a product which is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands. If cigarettes could kill you after a single use do you know how illegal they would be?

Now bring up how drugs like meth don't kill people and I'll show you how when morticians write down causes of death. They don't write down "choice". They write down : "Crystalmeth overdose".

Before anybody decides to bring up a car analogy think about this. What do you think the government would do to a company who's product was built with 0 safety precautions or any kind? That is exactly what drugs like heroin and cocaine are. They are drugs who do not guarantee any kind of safety. Name me a single car that meets not a single standard of safety for it's driver? As much as Libertarians like to deny it. It is not in anybody's interest to allow public access to hard drugs regardless of how regulated they are. Pure & Simple.

Create versions of these drugs that can not give people overdoses while maintaining the high and I'll be on their side. Until then. Tough luck.
 
Last edited:
What exact kind of punishment would the folks who commit non-violent crimes get? I mean we cannot just do nothing. Would it be stiff fines, classes, etc? What?
 
If you change the law, then it's not breaking it anymore.

And decriminalizing very minor things might be a way of improving prisons while also improving society and saving money.

But where does one draw the line? B&E no longer a crime? Shoplifiting no longer a crime? Jacking a car no longer a crime? There is a huge list of non-violent crimes. :shock:
 
What exact kind of punishment would the folks who commit non-violent crimes get? I mean we cannot just do nothing. Would it be stiff fines, classes, etc? What?

But where does one draw the line? B&E no longer a crime? Shoplifiting no longer a crime? Jacking a car no longer a crime? There is a huge list of non-violent crimes. :shock:

Are you asking what is possible, or what I think?

Anything is possible. Line-drawing wouldn't be any harder than it was to draw the lines we have now.

I think that the vast majority of financial crimes should be punished with house arrest and garnishment of wages until 2-3X the cost of the crime is paid back. Forcing people to work for the government is inefficient, so they should be able to work wherever they like.

Property crimes that involve any sort of physical danger are another matter, and the lower level things like shoplifting have such a low level of detection that the risk of being forced to pay back 3X the cost would not be enough to have a deterrent effect.
 
It would not work if we decided to do something like this in reguards to petty crimes. I mean people would just think this is a breeze and would keep stealing.

Most folks who are stealing are not folks that are working so you are not making sense to me.

How are these folks gonna ever be able to pay back debts when most of the people that commit these crimes do not work?

Do you really think house arrest is punishment? All the criminals have to do is invite their crew over to party and think about ways to get around things. Your whole idea would bring House Party to a whole other crazy level. lol
 
It would not work if we decided to do something like this in reguards to petty crimes. I mean people would just think this is a breeze and would keep stealing.

Most folks who are stealing are not folks that are working so you are not making sense to me.

How are these folks gonna ever be able to pay back debts when most of the people that commit these crimes do not work?

Do you really think house arrest is punishment? All the criminals have to do is invite their crew over to party and think about ways to get around things. Your whole idea would bring House Party to a whole other crazy level. lol

Did you actually read my post? I addressed pretty much every one of your questions.

This would be limited to financial crimes, e.g. embezzlement, mail fraud, etc. The people who commit these types of crimes are generally white-collar folks. And yes, house arrest is a very effective type of punishment for most people, as is garnishment of wages.

For physical and low-level property crimes, the current punishments would remain in place.
 
What exact kind of punishment would the folks who commit non-violent crimes get? I mean we cannot just do nothing. Would it be stiff fines, classes, etc? What?

Usually restitution to the victims and community service, that kind of thing.
 
I didnt read the entier thread so forgive me if Im repeating what others have said.

It seems to me that our prison system is as much to keep people out of sight out of mind and alot of people just do not care what happens since it no longer interferes with their lives. While some could argue that some of these people deserve whatever they recieve I feel we are letting humanity down.

I have a close family member that spent time in prison and heard from them about the conditions they are put in. When you see what they are subject to you wonder how we could ever expect anyone to come out a model citizen. Prisons are stife with rape, beatings, verbal abuse, murder, fear, and intimidation. Murder someone in prison and what do they give you? As little at 2 more years. They just dont care what happens to prisoners. You are no longer a person.

Prisoners live hour by hour in fear of other prisoners. You learn to either prey on others or become a victim yourself yet we expect them to act properly after years of such confinment.
 
What exact kind of punishment would the folks who commit non-violent crimes get? I mean we cannot just do nothing. Would it be stiff fines, classes, etc? What?

Heavy fines, living under house arrest in their own home and/or in a place similar to a halfway home, ankle bracelets, no television, limited internet access, and limited visitation rights.

Basically, a place where they could be watched closely without the trauma of living in a tiny cage with rapists.
 
Last edited:
Well marijuana is produced. I don't think the mere production of a drug should be grounds for sending somebody to jail. Hard drugs? That is a different story. I have never heard of a marijuana or shrooms overdose. I've heard of ecstasy overdoses, heroin overdoses, crack overdoses etc. I doubt many people here would be anywhere near okay with a company that produces a product which is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands. If cigarettes could kill you after a single use do you know how illegal they would be?

Now bring up how drugs like meth don't kill people and I'll show you how when morticians write down causes of death. They don't write down "choice". They write down : "Crystalmeth overdose".

Before anybody decides to bring up a car analogy think about this. What do you think the government would do to a company who's product was built with 0 safety precautions or any kind? That is exactly what drugs like heroin and cocaine are. They are drugs who do not guarantee any kind of safety. Name me a single car that meets not a single standard of safety for it's driver? As much as Libertarians like to deny it. It is not in anybody's interest to allow public access to hard drugs regardless of how regulated they are. Pure & Simple.

Create versions of these drugs that can not give people overdoses while maintaining the high and I'll be on their side. Until then. Tough luck.

The main reason why people overdose on drugs is because they are getting fluctuating potencys, because they are buying from the black market. Overdoses from MDMA (ecstasy) are very rare.

The Psychological and Physiological Effects of MDMA on Normal Volunteers, by Joseph Downing, from Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Vol. 18/4 1986.

This study examined the effects of MDMA on 21 healthy volunteers, including 13 men and 8 women, between the ages of 20 and 58. Their average age was 39. The volunteers had all previously used MDMA, an average of 8 times. All thought they had benefited from it and had recommended its use to others. Doses were chosen by subjects and ranged from 0.8 to 1.9 mg/kg of subjects' body weight, averaging 165 mg. There were no added doses.

Downing notes that oral doses administered in therapy are less than 1 per cent of the LD50 (the dose that kills 50 per cent of rats or mice given the drug), implying a high margin of safety.
 
Usually restitution to the victims and community service, that kind of thing.

Don't you think these kind of crimes would rise if people knew they were not gonna be locked up? People that do break ins do not have money to start with so where is the restitution to the victims gonna come from? What kind of restitution are we talking about here?

Also what happens if they do not do their community service? Do they get locked up or what?
 
Back
Top Bottom