• 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!

What is the purpose of correctional institutions?

Dittohead not! said:
Cruel and unusual punishment is revenge, which is why it's banned by the Constitution.
Keeping a violent felon in prison for life is justified in that it keeps him from posing a threat to the rest of society.
The death penalty is not necessary in a civilized society, and represents too much power given to the government.
A million dollar bail for a non flight risk is an unnecessary and unjustified punishment.

We have judges to sort all of this out. Unfortunately, no one has perfect judgement, not even judges.
Click to expand...

No. It is not revenge and that is not why it is unconstitutional. It was considered, "unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the person subjected to it."
 
Bodhisattva said:
No. It is not revenge and that is not why it is unconstitutional. It was considered, "unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the person subjected to it."
Click to expand...

Right, and the only reason for imposing suffering, pain, or humiliation is revenge. What other possible purpose could there be for that sort of barbarism?
 
Dittohead not! said:
If Hell on Earth prisons aren't there to make life any better for the rest of us, if they do nothing to reduce crime, what purpose could they possibly serve other than revenge?
Click to expand...

LOL! I hope you don't expect an honest or rational answer.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Bodhi, Tanngrisnir..... gentlemen, it is time to cease fire. Please cease from talking to or about each other if you can't be 100% civil.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Right, and the only reason for imposing suffering, pain, or humiliation is revenge. What other possible purpose could there be for that sort of barbarism?
Click to expand...

That does not mean revenge... that is simply a narrow interpretation of it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
His movies are full of verifiable and proven lies and a complete waste of time...
Click to expand...

Yes, a complete waste of time for an individual with a closed mind, by all means.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The name implies correcting something. Is the purpose to correct unlawful behavior?
If that's so, then they fail miserably.

Is the purpose to keep dangerous criminals away from the rest of society?
If that's so, then they fail every time they let a dangerous criminal out.

Is the purpose punishment for crimes?
If that's so, then there must be a less expensive way to punish people for crimes.

Is the purpose to deter crime?
Same as punishment: If the potential punishment is not worth it, presumably people won't commit crimes.

But, they do commit crimes, so deterrence doesn't seem to be working very well either.

Or, is there some other purpose I've missed?
Click to expand...

I think it's to funnel money to private corporations who set up and run prisons and shove as many criminals in there per square inch as they can to gain more in government funding, cut corners as much as possible to increase profits, and generally ignore the humanity of anyone on the inside.
 
Ikari said:
I think it's to funnel money to private corporations who set up and run prisons and shove as many criminals in there per square inch as they can to gain more in government funding, cut corners as much as possible to increase profits, and generally ignore the humanity of anyone on the inside.
Click to expand...
I separate the question. Prisons in and of themselves, serve a purpose, whatever that may be, and that's how I interpret the original question.

Privately run corporate prisons are a relatively new addition to the scene, and while what you say is true, they have merely served to bastardize the system even further, but their greed is not the original purpose.
 
Bodhisattva said:
That does not mean revenge... that is simply a narrow interpretation of it.
Click to expand...

An eye for an eye, you caused suffering so now you must suffer, that's revenge. Giving offenders a chance to correct their behavior, that's what civilized society does.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The name implies correcting something. Is the purpose to correct unlawful behavior?
If that's so, then they fail miserably.

Is the purpose to keep dangerous criminals away from the rest of society?
If that's so, then they fail every time they let a dangerous criminal out.
Click to expand...
We have this little The Constitution of the United States of America that has a statement about undue punishment. Simply throwing every potentially danergous criminal into a hole for the remainder of his/her life violates that.

Is the purpose punishment for crimes?
If that's so, then there must be a less expensive way to punish people for crimes.
Click to expand...
Such as?? Stocks, public beatings..??

Is the purpose to deter crime?
Same as punishment: If the potential punishment is not worth it, presumably people won't commit crimes.

But, they do commit crimes, so deterrence doesn't seem to be working very well either.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that the system should work perfectly. It doesn't. But it does work. There are a LOT of people who's only motivation for not committing a crime is the idea of going to jail for doing so. Take away punishment for crimes and you have a little thing i like to call "anarchy".


[/quote]Or, is there some other purpose I've missed?[/QUOTE]
It's not a purpose that you've missed, it's the results. You are expecting perfect results when there is no such thing. What we do have is a system that does prevent a LOT of crime and does prevent a LOT of recidivism. It's not perfect, it doesn't work every time, but for a LOT of people it's highly effective.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The name implies correcting something. Is the purpose to correct unlawful behavior?
If that's so, then they fail miserably.

Is the purpose to keep dangerous criminals away from the rest of society?
If that's so, then they fail every time they let a dangerous criminal out.

Is the purpose punishment for crimes?
If that's so, then there must be a less expensive way to punish people for crimes.

Is the purpose to deter crime?
Same as punishment: If the potential punishment is not worth it, presumably people won't commit crimes.

But, they do commit crimes, so deterrence doesn't seem to be working very well either.

Or, is there some other purpose I've missed?
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about your first paragraph. Recidivism rates fro ex cons is relatively low, believe it or not.

total.GIF


Of course, a lot depends on what you call "low." But, IMO, <50% after 6 years is not bad.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, a complete waste of time for an individual with a closed mind, by all means.
Click to expand...

A brainwashing propaganda tool for individuals with no minds... that is for sure.
 
Dittohead not! said:
An eye for an eye, you caused suffering so now you must suffer, that's revenge. Giving offenders a chance to correct their behavior, that's what civilized society does.
Click to expand...

Remain blissfully ignorant if you like... Can't say that I didn't try.
 
faithful_servant said:
We have this little The Constitution of the United States of America that has a statement about undue punishment. Simply throwing every potentially danergous criminal into a hole for the remainder of his/her life violates that.


Such as?? Stocks, public beatings..??



You're assuming that the system should work perfectly. It doesn't. But it does work. There are a LOT of people who's only motivation for not committing a crime is the idea of going to jail for doing so. Take away punishment for crimes and you have a little thing i like to call "anarchy".


It's not a purpose that you've missed, it's the results. You are expecting perfect results when there is no such thing. What we do have is a system that does prevent a LOT of crime and does prevent a LOT of recidivism. It's not perfect, it doesn't work every time, but for a LOT of people it's highly effective
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't expect the prison system or any other system devised by man to be perfect, but it does seem that the one we have could be improved.

The first step in improvement would be to decide just what the correctional institutions are supposed to do. Your post seems to indicate that punishment for crimes is the main purpose.
 
calamity said:
I'm not so sure about your first paragraph. Recidivism rates fro ex cons is relatively low, believe it or not.

total.GIF


Of course, a lot depends on what you call "low." But, IMO, <50% after 6 years is not bad.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, that's a lot better than I thought it was.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, I don't expect the prison system or any other system devised by man to be perfect, but it does seem that the one we have could be improved.

The first step in improvement would be to decide just what the correctional institutions are supposed to do. Your post seems to indicate that punishment for crimes is the main purpose.
Click to expand...
While I don't disagree with this at all, I believe it can never happen. The decision would vary with the political winds of each administration and popular mindset. It shouldn't, but it would.
 
radcen said:
While I don't disagree with this at all, I believe it can never happen. The decision would vary with the political winds of each administration and popular mindset. It shouldn't, but it would.
Click to expand...

The blowing of political winds does make any logical and practical solutions to problems difficult, doesn't it? Reforming the prison system is no different.

Imagine how much better everything would work if we were seeking practical, rather than ideological, solutions to problems.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, I don't expect the prison system or any other system devised by man to be perfect, but it does seem that the one we have could be improved.

The first step in improvement would be to decide just what the correctional institutions are supposed to do. Your post seems to indicate that punishment for crimes is the main purpose.
Click to expand...

I never said, implied, hinted at or otherwise indicated any position on what I think that the main purpose for jails is. It's multi-faceted and to make one piece the "main" purpose only serves to create a false perspective of what jails should do. IMO, it comes down to three things - Prevention (negative example), rehabilitation and punishment. I think that what it sounds like you're wanting is a system that can separate the last two from each other. One of the best things we could do is separate the criminals that are "redeemable" from those who are not. For the "redeemable" ones, I'd like to see a kind of boot camp/counseling/education environment that would be focused on fixing them. For the "non-redeemable" ones, build a big jail on an isolated island and dump them all there for a life of 23 hour lock downs, nutritional but plain food and little else (books and maybe some music).
 
faithful_servant said:
I never said, implied, hinted at or otherwise indicated any position on what I think that the main purpose for jails is. It's multi-faceted and to make one piece the "main" purpose only serves to create a false perspective of what jails should do. IMO, it comes down to three things - Prevention (negative example), rehabilitation and punishment. I think that what it sounds like you're wanting is a system that can separate the last two from each other. One of the best things we could do is separate the criminals that are "redeemable" from those who are not. For the "redeemable" ones, I'd like to see a kind of boot camp/counseling/education environment that would be focused on fixing them. For the "non-redeemable" ones, build a big jail on an isolated island and dump them all there for a life of 23 hour lock downs, nutritional but plain food and little else (books and maybe some music).
Click to expand...

That would be preferable to dumping the ones who are redeemable with those who are not. The latter group has a strong influence over the former.

Then there is the issue of violent vs. non violent offenders. Surely, there must be a better way to punish the non violent ones than keeping them locked up at fifty grand a year or so. Take guys like Bernie Madoff, for example. They're never going to be able to run their scams again, not with all of the publicity, so why keep them locked up? Why not make them live on minimum wage for the rest of their lives? That would seem to me a more appropriate punishment.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That would be preferable to dumping the ones who are redeemable with those who are not. The latter group has a strong influence over the former.

Then there is the issue of violent vs. non violent offenders. Surely, there must be a better way to punish the non violent ones than keeping them locked up at fifty grand a year or so. Take guys like Bernie Madoff, for example. They're never going to be able to run their scams again, not with all of the publicity, so why keep them locked up? Why not make them live on minimum wage for the rest of their lives? That would seem to me a more appropriate punishment.
Click to expand...

Let's Bernie as our "lab rat"...

So Bernie gets sentenced to a life of working at MW. He has to find a job where his employer would have to agree that he never gets a raise and never gets any additional bennies thrown his way. That gives them an employee who is just about as unmotivated as it's possible to be. No reason to put in any more effort than the bare minimum required to keep from getting fired, since the only thing in it for him is avoiding getting fired. Few employers would agree to this. He would also be taking away a job from an entry-level employee who has a chance of moving up and becoming a more valuable citizen. We also prevent Bernie from using his substantial skills in working with people and managing money for the betterment of society, since he's not going to bust his hump for MW.

I agree that violent offenders should be treated differently than non-violent ones, but that can't extend to punishments that are ineffective. Part of punishment is to dis-incentivize other potential offenders and when you turn "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" into "it's only a couple of years shoveling horse****, but my family is provided for, so I'll go ahead and embezzle that money and dump it into an off-shore account that they can live on for the rest of their life"
 
faithful_servant said:
Let's Bernie as our "lab rat"...

So Bernie gets sentenced to a life of working at MW. He has to find a job where his employer would have to agree that he never gets a raise and never gets any additional bennies thrown his way. That gives them an employee who is just about as unmotivated as it's possible to be. No reason to put in any more effort than the bare minimum required to keep from getting fired, since the only thing in it for him is avoiding getting fired. Few employers would agree to this. He would also be taking away a job from an entry-level employee who has a chance of moving up and becoming a more valuable citizen. We also prevent Bernie from using his substantial skills in working with people and managing money for the betterment of society, since he's not going to bust his hump for MW.

I agree that violent offenders should be treated differently than non-violent ones, but that can't extend to punishments that are ineffective. Part of punishment is to dis-incentivize other potential offenders and when you turn "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" into "it's only a couple of years shoveling horse****, but my family is provided for, so I'll go ahead and embezzle that money and dump it into an off-shore account that they can live on for the rest of their life"
Click to expand...

That minimum wage job would probably have to be a government job, but it would still be cheaper than keeping him locked up.

Don't you think such a punishment would be effective for guys like Madoff?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom