Torture in America

[Mouser]

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Now let me see if I read this correctly...

Bail can be required, so long as it is not excessive.

Fines can be imposed, so long as they are not excessive.

Punishments can be inflicted, so long as they are not cruel or unusual.

It's that last bit that got my attention this morning.

Doesn't that enshrine in our nation's culture and law the idea that criminals aught to be punished, rather than rehabilitated?

And IF punishment is the purpose, then how much "punishment" can we mete out before it becomes "cruel and unusual?" For myself, I don't want to be punished at all. I would consider any punishment of me to be cruel, and as for unusual, I'm not familiar with the "usual" punishments of daily life.

(Unless they are speaking of marriage, in which case, I feel I have suffered enough, thank you, and it's a life sentence. :D Sam Kinison, where art thou!!??)

In our culture, for even the innocent among those within the judicial system, torture has long been a part of every day life, from the moment a person enters and is subjected to a brutal cavity search through the dehumanizing process of becoming a cypher and the pseudo-militaristic systemetizing of daily life.

From the more "official" water torture and beatings that lasted long into the twentieth century , to the less "official" beatings, humiliations, and abuses both inflicted by guards and allowed by guards, it is not surprising that the American prison system has these elements, as they seem to be enshrined in our seminal document.

What do you think?

[Windhaven]

The "Cruel and unusual" part was installed to keep Judges from singling out people they didn't like for harsher treatment.

As a side note, punishment and rehabilitation aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Punishment can be a valuable part of rehabilitation.

[Mouser]

The "Cruel and unusual" part was installed to keep Judges from singling out people they didn't like for harsher treatment.

As a side note, punishment and rehabilitation aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Punishment can be a valuable part of rehabilitation.

Really?

How does that work, given that most violent criminals were physically abused as children?

[Archer]

The "Cruel and unusual" part was installed to keep Judges from singling out people they didn't like for harsher treatment.



Quoted for truth.

What is considered cruel or unusual varies over time. But the intent is that nothing funky happens in one particular case that doesn't happen elsewhere.

Doesn't that enshrine in our nation's culture and law the idea that criminals aught to be punished, rather than rehabilitated?


Bail can be required, so long as it is not excessive.

Fines can be imposed, so long as they are not excessive.

Punishments can be inflicted, so long as they are not cruel or unusual.


Things can happen but whether they should varies.

And as was pointed out, punishment and rehab aren't mutually exclusive.

[BattleNymph]

Really?

How does that work, given that most violent criminals were physically abused as children?

Punishment doesn't necessarily mean physical abuse.

[Mouser]

Punishment doesn't necessarily mean physical abuse.

But it does require some sort of abuse.

[BattleNymph]

But it does require some sort of abuse.
I suppose that depends on viewpoint. Sitting in a corner for 10 minutes isn't generally considered abuse. But then, to the kid sent there perhaps it seems like that.

how can there be any rehabilitation though without rules? And dont' rules need a consequence when they're broken?

[Mouser]

I suppose that depends on viewpoint. Sitting in a corner for 10 minutes isn't generally considered abuse. But then, to the kid sent there perhaps it seems like that.

how can there be any rehabilitation though without rules? And dont' rules need a consequence when they're broken?

My original point is that the system we have devised requires that we inflict pain (whether mental anguish or physical pain is irrelevent, since we have chosen to do both since before this country began) on those who become wards of the state due to their flaunting of society's rules.

I understand that how they come to be wards of the state is due to their faulty decision making process, but what responsibility do we have to help them recover from the abuse we inflict on them due to our reaction to their faulty decisions?

[Windhaven]

There are a couple of lessons that have to be delivered to a criminal in prison.

First, you have to teach them the skills to live within our society's laws.

Second, you want them to learn that they *don't* want to go back to jail.

Simply depriving them of their freedom is often a punishment in and of itself, though for some hard cases more may be required to drive the lesson home.

But unless they know how to make a living without breaking the law when they get out, we're leaving them in a twilight zone where we expect them to obey the laws and contribute without actually being able to do it. Their alternatives become simple: Law abiding starvation, or comit crimes to survive. Don't be surprised if they choose to survive.

The typical prisoner in a US jail is borderline illiterate, with a history of chemical abuse. Add a prison record to that package and you have a near perfect recipe for a man who can't get a job.

You can't change the "history of chemical abuse" part, so the only hope they have is to learn a worthwhile trade of some kind.

[Mouser]

1) Most people who are in prison don't blame themselves for being in prison.

They blame the judge, their lawyer, the cop who caught them, their partners in crime, society or circumstances.

They NEVER blame themselves.

2) Prisons are not set up to teach people how to recover from prison. Go ask any cop with at least a couple of years of street under their belt and they can tell someone who has been in prison in a heartbeat.

Prison culture leaves an indelible mark for anyone who knows what to look for to see. A rite of passage for the street criminal, true, but a death sentence for anyone who wants to fit back into normal society after prison.

[StarkDaddy]

But unless they know how to make a living without breaking the law when they get out, we're leaving them in a twilight zone where we expect them to obey the laws and contribute without actually being able to do it.

See, I disagree with this. Even the most unmotivated and unskilled worker can get a McJob and scrap by without resorting to crime. I often hear about "teaching them how to make a living" but what does that mean exactly? How to flip burgers? How to balance books? How to set an alarm and get up for work - or show up on time?

What exactly are we to teach people about how to make a living that they don't already know? Making a living is not a difficult concept and generally boils down to whether or not your pride will let you work a specific job. Having cleaned toilets during jobs in my life, I know that there is very little (of a legal nature) that I wouldn't do in order to keep food on the table - and no one had to teach me that.

[Mouser]

How to balance books? How to set an alarm and get up for work - or show up on time?

That.

And how to not get offended when asked to do something or when they got dressed down for screwing up.

How to not take all of the money from the cash register and just walk out.

[BlueNinja]

Making a living is not a difficult concept and generally boils down to whether or not your pride will let you work a specific job. Having cleaned toilets during jobs in my life, I know that there is very little (of a legal nature) that I wouldn't do in order to keep food on the table - and no one had to teach me that. I do believe that every enlisted person in the military has cleaned at least one toilet in their first enlistment. My count only runs to about a dozen toilets - daily over six months. :no:

[StarkDaddy]

That.

Surely these simple instructions can be learned quickly... an afternoon seminar, at the very most?

And how to not get offended when asked to do something or when they got dressed down for screwing up.

How to not take all of the money from the cash register and just walk out.

Now you're talking about rehabilitation, not necessarily "learning how to make a living." One denotes a set of skills necessary to make money, the other is a deeper, fundamental change in your entire world view (which could quite possibly be skewed by neural conditions that are unaffected by behavior modification.)

So, we're not just talking life skills, we're back into the "dose rehab work" debate... which then brings us full hilt to the punishment vs. rehab argument.

[Windhaven]

What exactly are we to teach people about how to make a living that they don't already know?
Fair question.

To start with, teach them to read and write well enough to fill out a job application, and to look in the paper to find a job. You'd be amazed how many kids used to come in and appy for work who hadn't mastered that skill. (I used to manage a restaurant, long ago.)

Teaching them some basic money management skills is probably a good idea, so they can actually survive on what a McJob pays. I have a number of "poor" friends whose "poverty" can be traced pretty solidly to their stupid spending habits. Payday loans are a death spiral, so they need to learn patience, to wait to buy the things they want.

I have no problem training a guy to fix cars, or other similar work-with-the-hands trade if it keeps them from going back to jail. This isn't about teaching them humility, or to "swallow their pride". It's about avoiding repeat crime, and the cost of imprisoning them again.

[Rallan]

See, I disagree with this. Even the most unmotivated and unskilled worker can get a McJob and scrap by without resorting to crime. I often hear about "teaching them how to make a living" but what does that mean exactly? How to flip burgers? How to balance books? How to set an alarm and get up for work - or show up on time?

What exactly are we to teach people about how to make a living that they don't already know? Making a living is not a difficult concept and generally boils down to whether or not your pride will let you work a specific job. Having cleaned toilets during jobs in my life, I know that there is very little (of a legal nature) that I wouldn't do in order to keep food on the table - and no one had to teach me that.

Yeah but who wants a McJob for the rest of their life? Little or no health cover, unreliable hours, minimum wage, never enough money to cover more than the basics, and the moment something goes wrong in ways that need money to fix, you're either up to your eyeballs in debt or selling your TV and stereo. Its one thing to take that sort of menial minimum-wage work if you're young and studying, or if you just need a bit of extra cash while you're looking for your next real job, but its not a life. And I'd imagine it'd be even less attractive to someone who's been making their money the illegal way.

[Parzival]

Rallan, have you completely lost your mind?
Nearly everybody starts working around minimum wage. And after they establish a work history, they get better-paying jobs. Either by moving up in the company, or to a different position in a different company.
Especially if they take the initiative to actually learn some skills along the way.

I would venture that everyone here has held their share of "McJobs". <shrug> It's where you start in the world. Getting beyond that point, is up to you.

[StarkDaddy]

To start with, teach them to read and write well enough to fill out a job application, and to look in the paper to find a job. You'd be amazed how many kids used to come in and appy for work who hadn't mastered that skill. (I used to manage a restaurant, long ago.)

Teaching them some basic money management skills is probably a good idea, so they can actually survive on what a McJob pays. I have a number of "poor" friends whose "poverty" can be traced pretty solidly to their stupid spending habits. Payday loans are a death spiral, so they need to learn patience, to wait to buy the things they want.

I have no problem training a guy to fix cars, or other similar work-with-the-hands trade if it keeps them from going back to jail. This isn't about teaching them humility, or to "swallow their pride". It's about avoiding repeat crime, and the cost of imprisoning them again.

You want to teach them to be literate enough to fill out a job app, okay - that's fine. Should take all of 1, 2 days max (and that is for the uber slow.) I'm down with that, but once you get back into discussing money management skills you've reverted over to behavior modification (i.e. instilling an appreciation for delayed gratification in this case) which is a questionable goal, at best.

There's nothing to learn about patience in a classroom or school; such knowledge comes through the making of mistakes that are a result of impatience.

The thing is, training them to fix cars would probably be a better idea. At least there is a direct application when they are out in the real world, but it is the criminals inability to delay gratification and to take what they want, when they want it, that makes them criminal. Thus such proposals seem to have very little to do with teaching "life skills" and more to do with making them not "bad" guys.

Yeah but who wants a McJob for the rest of their life?

Nobody, which generally serves as incentive to better one's self and position, if possible. (I understand that there are exceptions.)

Its not society's job to ensure that the felon becomes a CEO with a Hummer and Origen serving him lattes in leopard skin. You have to earn that, and Org ain't cheap - ask his mom.

Stark

[Adam G]

Starkus: you've reverted over to behavior modification (i.e. instilling an appreciation for delayed gratification in this case) which is a questionable goal, at best

If you're not going to attempt behavior modification, there's precious little point in sending them to prison. They could be in there 20 years or 20 minutes, it wouldn't matter. If they come out behaving the same way that they did when they went in, then the whole thing's a waste of everyone's time and the taxpayer's money.

Personally I'd push hard for anger management courses. Anything to persuade a career criminal that violence is not the solution to all life's problems.

I don't know how much of his work is net-stored, but it'd be worth reading Erwin James. He's an ex-prisoner who published a lot of articles about his experiences on both sides of the bars. Interesting stuff.

[Kalzazz]

I have never worked a McJob, given a choice between working a McJob and turning to crime I would give very long and serious thought to crime.

I once was a kennel manager at a playhouse, and that was as close to McJobdom as I ever want to come

[StarkDaddy]

If you're not going to attempt behavior modification, there's precious little point in sending them to prison.

Punishing them while keeping them away from me and mine is a great point for sending them there.

[Adam G]

Starkus: Punishing them

Which is behavior modification. So you are in favor. Oh good.

Tell you what. Since all you really want is distance, here's an idea: let's send you and yours to prison. After all, you'll be safe there. You can be locked far far away from those nasty men, get your three squares a day, maybe even a little work, and all's well.

[StarkDaddy]

Technically you are correct re: punishment, however with the general reciticism rate, punishment being an effective behavior modification for criminals is questionable. I favor it because it's kinda like blasting the prick in the face for hitting on your girlfriend, you're doing it mainly for you.

Tell you what. Since all you really want is distance, here's an idea: let's send you and yours to prison. After all, you'll be safe there. You can be locked far far away from those nasty men, get your three squares a day, maybe even a little work, and all's well.

I'm sure (read: god I hope so) that the above was intended to be tongue in cheek - as a weak attempt at wit in replacement for your lack of an argument - but its pretty much the equivalent of grabbing your ball, sticking out your tongue, and saying "nuh uh!"

Thus I'll now grant it all of the consideration its worth.

[Adam G]

Starkus: your lack of an argument

Not quite. I decided that since you weren't going to take me seriously anyway, there was little point in taking you seriously.

However kudos on achieving brown belt sarcasm. Now perhaps with more training at the dojo . . . .

Recidivism, btw, is the word you were striving to find. Which brings me neatly onto:

You want to teach them to be literate enough to fill out a job app, okay - that's fine. Should take all of 1, 2 days max

Which is such utter bullshit that I'm not surprised you espouse it.

It took you the better part of fifteen years to achieve your current level of literacy. Moreover this was when your brain was a lean, mean, learning machine (ie. when you were young) and not the cabbage encased in concrete that it is today. Yet somehow, deep beneath the reinforced concrete, there's a little spark of light that says 'wow, if I can do this in fifteen years, anyone else can do it in 1 or 2 days!'

A prisoner, whose formal educational level is probably very low, is going to take time to achieve literacy skills. Time to understand how things work when you don't have to prove your fitness with your fists. Time to understand even the most basic levels of personal accountancy.

Time, in fact, to learn how to function in the outside world. That functionality takes a level of skill and determination that is remarkably difficult to achieve and maintain over time. Even people who have never been to prison fail at this, sometimes miserably. Former criminals, who didn't have much of a skillset to begin with, are doubly damned and will definitely return to crime (our dear old friend recividism), unless we do something about it. Which means that we must attempt to modify their behavior.

Unless you'd rather they pay you and yours a visit as soon as they leave prison? Perhaps to have a friendly chat about literacy?

[Joe Kickass]

Unless you'd rather they pay you and yours a visit as soon as they leave prison? Perhaps to have a friendly chat about literacy?

That happened to me once. Turns out I had a lot of growing up to do.

[StarkDaddy]

Not quite. I decided that since you weren't going to take me seriously anyway, there was little point in taking you seriously.

Nice.

We have a straw man to cover up for the fact that you blew your load early, all over your girl's dress, and want to pretend it was intentional. I'm not buying it, and neither is she; she speaks from experience.

However kudos on achieving brown belt sarcasm. Now perhaps with more training at the dojo . . . .

Nah. When beating up on a practice dummy, a brown belt will more than suffice.

Recidivism, btw, is the word you were striving to find. Which brings me neatly onto:

The last resort of the mentally deficient - attack the grammar. Note the multiple references through the post as evidence of said deficiency and general lack of creativity.

The point is that filling out an application doesn't require a bachelors in English, nor any great literary proficiency. I understand that completing such a task is monumental to you, in a near mystical way, but that's to be expected from someone who still wonders what that yellow thing in the sky tastes like.

Stark

[Adam G]

Starkus: The last resort of the mentally deficient - attack the grammar

:D :D :D

Even the mentally deficient would have recognized that I was correcting your spelling, not attacking your grammar.

But then the mentally deficient do have an advantage over you, dear heart. They make some use of their intelligence.

[Windhaven]

Stark, the sad fact is that I've seen many people who couldn't fill it out correctly. Why not? Because they couldn't read the questions very well, and misunderstood them.

I used to manage a restaurant, so I saw people apply for jobs as kitchen help or bus boys, essentially unskilled, bottom of the barrel labor.

No, it doesn't take a degree in English, but it does take a level of literacy that was beyond some of them.

I tend to think of literacy as being a two-tiered thing. There are people who can read, but not very well. They won't read a newspaper because it's work. They won't browse the internet, except to look at pictures. Same for magazines.

Then there's the level we're at, where reading is easy and natural. We're people who can pick up a book and read for pleasure, or to self-educate.

That gap is an immense one, specifically because of the "self educate" part.

If you were reading an application, how would you react if it asked, "Have you ever worked for this company before?", and they replied "Yes, at McDonalds"? Would you hire that person? I never did.

Well, that's the literacy level of a lot of the people in prison. Correct that and you increase their employability, and cut the chances of them returning to crime.

[StarkDaddy]

Even the mentally deficient would have recognized that I was correcting your spelling, not attacking your grammar.

But then the mentally deficient do have an advantage over you, dear heart. They make some use of their intelligence.

You know, Adam, I'm having trouble deciding if you're more like a bobble head doll or a one trick pony... or maybe you're the guy in the group who tells a joke that no one laughs at, and then repeats it over and over again ad nauseum - and still no one laughs.

Well, that's the literacy level of a lot of the people in prison. Correct that and you increase their employability, and cut the chances of them returning to crime.

I'm curious as to how many, though. But taking what you said as a given, how long do you really think it takes to teach someone how to fill it out properly, or what to look for? I still say that it shouldn't take more than 2 days, and I'm at a loss to determine how you would fill each day, specifically, with instruction.

Look, I'm not saying that giving the criminal some instruction isn't worthwhile. I just don't look at criminals like Adam does: poor, unfortunate victims of circumstance that only turned to crime because society had let them down. That's bull shit, believe me, I've known too many criminals.

Secondly re: behavior modification, teachers know that if you haven't reached a student by the third grade, your chances of altering poor behavior though antecedents, rewards and punishments are greatly reduce, and gets worse year after year. That, too me, is the main reason that criminals tend to remain criminals and in prison.

Stark

[Windhaven]

Well, you aren't simply teaching them to fill out a form. Forms change from employer to employer, and ultimately thay have to be able to actually keep the job once they have it.

What you're teaching them is to read and write. And that takes more than two days.

Beyond that, consider actually teaching them a marketable skill. I mean, you've got them for a while, whether they like it or not, and compared to the cost of securely housing and caring for them, it's a minute percentage increase to actually teach them something like auto body work, engine repair, carpentry, etc. And if it keeps us from having to pay to imprison them a second time, society is dollars ahead.

[Wook]

We have people that no doubt know the developmental psychology much better than me but I was generally under the impression that sometime between 20 and 25 the person's development basically became fixed and didn't start to progress again until they reached retirement. Achieving growth outside of that generally required some sort of significant life event of a generally traumatic nature or a determined effort on the part of the individual.

[Adam G]

Depends, ****. Some pensioners continue learning right up until they die. Recent immigrants to a country of any age strive to learn the language, the history, the ways of the country they settle in. That's what adult education is all about. Anyone can do it; the only question is whether they bother - or whether they get the chance to bother.

Starkus, dear heart, you wonder why I tease.

Well, put it this way. You have no argument. You haven't said why behavior modification is a bad thing. You haven't said why you think people can learn life skills in a matter of days. You've just said it, and therefore you believe it, like a good Prussian believes the Kaiser.

Moreover when you try to use words you may not be familiar with, you don't bother to look up their definition or their spelling. You just use them and hope for the best. You don't even try to find out what the difference between spelling and grammar actually is.

Instead, you go red in the face, blow out your cheeks, and puff away. If this were a house of straw or sticks, you might have better luck. I might even stop teasing you. However so long as you make yourself a figure of fun - and that's exactly what you are doing - I'll keep on at it.

[Adam G]

poor, unfortunate victims of circumstance that only turned to crime because society had let them down. That's bull shit, believe me, I've known too many criminals

Oh, and while we're on the subject, I've never taken that position. You can claim it if you like - hell, you can claim that the sun shines out of your ass if you like - but I've never said it.

What I have said is that behavior modification has its uses if it can prevent crime in the future.

That's it. That's my whole position.

[Wook]

Depends, ****. Some pensioners continue learning right up until they die. Recent immigrants to a country of any age strive to learn the language, the history, the ways of the country they settle in. That's what adult education is all about. Anyone can do it; the only question is whether they bother - or whether they get the chance to bother.



I was referring to the growth of the individual rather than the simple acquisition of knowledge. Knowing where all the spawn points are for deviate beasties in the Wailing Caverns are when I play wow doesn't say much about my moral compass, work ethics, etc... I'm not sure I'm expressing the difference very well that I have in mind.

[StarkDaddy]

Nice try, shitstack, you'll see that I never said behavior modification was a bad thing, only that how well it works is questionable.

I then stated why I felt that way (i.e. recidivism.)

To which you made the ludicrous reply that, "if you're not going to attempt behavior modification, there's precious little point in sending them to prison."

http://www.criticalfumble.net/forum/showpost.php?p=11656&postcount=19

When I responded by saying that removal from society and punishment, for punishment's sake, were very valid reasons for prison, you went on some dumb ass tirade about sending my family to prison to be away from criminals. When I fired back, you tried to say that you knew that I wouldn't have taken you seriously, hence your reply.

Do try and keep up.

[Adam G]

Oh dear, he's thrown his dummy out of the pram again.

If you check the posts, you'll discover (among other things), that your comment on redicivism was made after (not before), my post "if you're not going to attempt behavior modification, there's precious little point in sending them to prison."

Moreover your redicivism comment was merely a comment. It made no attempt to address the points made in the post:

They could be in there 20 years or 20 minutes, it wouldn't matter. If they come out behaving the same way that they did when they went in, then the whole thing's a waste of everyone's time and the taxpayer's money.

To my mind, if I've got to spend a chunk of money keeping them in prison, then I might just as well spend money on trying to make sure that they don't reoffend when they come out of prison. Otherwise it's a waste of time and taxes, and I'm damned if I can see why I should waste my time or my money. Sure, education isn't going to eliminate repeat offending. However if it helps to reduce the rate of repeat offenses, then something useful came out of what would otherwise be a wasted process.

Which goes hand in hand with another of my beliefs: that citizens owe a duty of care to their fellow citizens. A duty to help and to support them when they need it. Without that duty, we don't have a civilization. We have anarchy.

You still haven't explained why you think behaviour modification is questionable.

Nor have you explained why you think someone can achieve in 2 days a level of literacy that it took you fifteen years to obtain.

However you have lost your temper. Which is a silly thing to do in any net debate, but there y'are.

:D

[StarkDaddy]

Oh dear, he's thrown his dummy out of the pram again.

I find these little comments so funny. At first I thought you were simply grasping futilely for some sort of humorous response to the beating that you've been taking, but now I realize you REALLY are 'that' guy.

You really are the twirling, tiny fru fru dork, the guy that laughs hardest at his own jokes, the one who uses phrases such as "dearie", "dear heart" etc., all the while thinking that they are being quick and witty, while unaware that they are indeed, themselves the true source of amusement.

I mean, I sit here and read your posts and actually flush in embarrassment for you. This feeling is compounded by the fact that I just had the realization that you do, you really do, think that you're hanging with me and being cleaver. You're a real piece of work.

If you check the posts, you'll discover (among other things), that your comment on redicivism was made after (not before), my post "if you're not going to attempt behavior modification, there's precious little point in sending them to prison."

Here is a great example, you're like a vulture circling above and waiting to scavenge on the irrelevant. In damn near every single post you've hedged your attack upon a spelling error. But not only have you relied upon it, you've marched forth with it on a banner - sort of like one of those Armageddon wackos that walk around holding end of the world signs; everyone just tries to keep their head down and pass by as quickly as possibly. And you're oblivious to all of this.

Moreover your redicivism comment was merely a comment. It made no attempt to address the points made in the post:

They could be in there 20 years or 20 minutes, it wouldn't matter. If they come out behaving the same way that they did when they went in, then the whole thing's a waste of everyone's time and the taxpayer's money.

I didn't address it directly because its a subjective comment, ass wipe.

Reality check: just because Adam G. states that our money has been wasted if the system can't rehab a prisoner doesn't make it so.

Which goes hand in hand with another of my beliefs: that citizens owe a duty of care to their fellow citizens. A duty to help and to support them when they need it. Without that duty, we don't have a civilization. We have anarchy.

See, its high brow, wanna-be prophetic commentary like this that causes me to mock-chortle. Its also this mentality that creates a society where pedophiles are put on probation by judges without spending a day in jail and then go onto do it again.

I care about my fellow man more than you do. Whereas you have no problem conducting uncertain, social experiment with criminals and then mixing them with the population to see what happens, I'd rather see the bad guys kept away from the good.

You still haven't explained why you think behaviour modification is questionable.

This statement boggles the mind. While you were marching around with that spelling error banner, did you ever actually look up and read what you were holding above your head? Have you had it up in the air so long that you've forgotten about it?

Nor have you explained why you think someone can achieve in 2 days a level of literacy that it took you fifteen years to obtain.

Fifteen years? Where do you keep getting this number, jackass? It doesn't make any sense. You REALLY think it takes 15 years of experience to be able to fill out a job application? Its statements like these that make me wonder if you aren't goofing around, but sadly, I'm starting to see that you're not.

You really are one of those obnoxious guys in the coffee shop that brings a book and pretends to read, all the while looking over the rim of the cover to make sure that people know he's a guy in a coffee shop reading a book. It's unreal.

However you have lost your temper. Which is a silly thing to do in any net debate, but there y'are.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

Dude, seriously, if you've never believed anything I've said, and never believe anything I ever say, PUH-LEASE believe me when I tell you that I'm LMFAO while reading your commentary and responding. I'll give you one thing, you're HIGHLY addictive. From the moment I see that you've responded I get all flush and butterflies in my stomach - you know, that feeling you get before you watch someone who is about to make a fool out of themselves? And then I read the post, and I see some cat that takes himself so seriously that he's deluded himself into thinking that others do the same. It's awesome!

[Adam G]

Now we've gotten this far I think it's safe to put you on ignore.

You still haven't made an argument, dear heart.

Nor, I suspect, will you ever.

[StarkDaddy]

Ahahahaha! Awesome! And you end with BOTH a "dear heart" AND putting me on ignore - all the while reminding me that oh no, I didn't make annnnnnny sort of argument as you walk out the door.

Rarely does one get to savor such prime Internet fare. *licks chops*

..though a comment about that spelling error would have been the cherry.

:thumbup:

[StarkDaddy]

P.S.

In this sentence here:

Whereas you have no problem conducting uncertain, social experiment with criminals and then mixing them with the population to see what happens, I'd rather see the bad guys kept away from the good.

...I didn't make experiment plural like I should have.

I wanted to point that out too you so you could write 10 or so posts about it. I figured that might cheer you up.

[Windhaven]

Fifteen years? Where do you keep getting this number, jackass? It doesn't make any sense. You REALLY think it takes 15 years of experience to be able to fill out a job application? Its statements like these that make me wonder if you aren't goofing around, but sadly, I'm starting to see that you're not.
Not to interrupt a good flame war, but he explained that number early on.

15 years to reach your current literact level. Figure that you start reading at 5 or 6, depending on the school system, and heep polishing the skill at least through college.

But I'd be happy if we could get them to a high-school reading level. That is, able to read a book and write a report on it.

I understand the idea that you can teach them to fill out a specific form in two days. I think you're being too specific, since forms vary from place to place. The goal isn't simply to get them to fill out a form, but to read and write well enough that they can do so competently.

Kind of like the man who told his wife, "I wish I had enough money to buy an Elephant." His wife asked, "What would you do with an Elephant?", to which he replied, "I don't want an Elephant, I just wish I had that much money."

The basic minimum ability to function in our society includes a certain level of literacy. Simple money management skills, like balancing a checkbook, or being able to tell if you got the right change back, are also on the list. Credit applications, filling out the paperwork to apply for an appartment, being able to read and pass the written part of the driver's exam, being able to read the "Help Wanted" section of a newspaper. There's a lot more to it than just filling out one form.

People who can't function in society end up functioning outside of it's rules, and it costs us money to imprison them. I'd like not to have to spend that twice.

As for behavior modification: Yes, I've seen "A Clockwork Orange" too. But every time we punish someone, we're attempting behavior modification. Sometimes crude, sometimes refined, but that is the basic goal. The question is, how crude do we want to be.

For some people, crude works, and for some it's the only thing that works. But for the rest, we can do better. We owe it to ourselves to do better. Like it or not, the USA has the highest percentage of its population under legal control (prison, parole, probation) of any nation in the world. That's a huge cost, both in lost productivity and in actual out-of-pocket cash. Cutting the repeat crime rate is a good way to change that.

[StarkDaddy]

It would take more than a couple of days to make someone literate. It's not just instruction involved, there's practice and repitition. Teaching willing children to read takes more than a couple of days, and they're generally developmentally better suited for the task.

Damn it, Chim - I actually wanted you to call me dear heart. *sniffle*

For the record, I agree with that in entirety. My point with Adam was that filling out a job app doesn't take a whole bunch of literary skill or knowledge. He seemed to be under the impression that it took 15 years of education before one should be able to do that, or something. I still haven't figured that out, yet.

The rate of recidivism on its own is not necessarilly an indictment of behaviour modification, as it isn't the sole contributing factor. <snip> The rate of recidivism doesn't speak to the failure of a focused and well-implemented behaviour modification project because there isn't any such animal.

Could you clarify this, sorry - not following in entirety. What other factors would you look to in order to define success in behaviour modification other than subsequent behavior?

Personally, as far as I'm concerned, punishment is pointless if there isn't at least a fair shot of changing future behaviour in a positive manner-- prison sucks as punishment.

Perhaps I'm a bit more petty and vengeful; I take great pleasure in knowing that child molesters et al get what's coming too them for that reason alone.

[StarkDaddy]

15 years to reach your current literact level...

But I said literate enough to fill out a job app. If he thinks that it takes a college literacy level to do that (which is mine), or 15 years, as he kept saying, then he's even stupider than he seems.

[StarkDaddy]

I could probably teach someone to fill out a given job application in a few minutes and maybe to have a reasonable shot at filling out most job apps in a couple of days... but that wouldn't be literacy, that would be rote memorization of a finite set of tasks. Filling out a job application is not an appropriate benchmark of literacy, IMHO. That said, fifteen years of education is a foolish estimate. In some senses, literacy is developed your whole life, but in a functional sense (i.e.: you have the ability to parse and comprehend novel instances of written language) that is at a level sufficient to make further explicit instruction not strictly necessary? I'd say the equivalent of a full course (100 some odd hours of instruction and facilitation, spread out over a few months to allow for the concommitant 'homework') would make a decent estimate to start working from.

Okay, very good. You know, an interesting statistic too see would be the literary ability of your average newby inmate.

Confounding variables, Stark: prisons aren't set up as exclusively behaviour modifying institutions... I imagine that the repeated forced sodomy gets in the way of the soul-searching.

Ah, my bad. Gotcha.

I hear you, I really do. And especially when it comes to short-eyes, I find my own thoughts wandering to the more baroque forms of algetic expression... But that's why principles are so important. Principles don't exist for when it's easy to do the right thing... they're there as guideposts for when our passions would lead us astray.

Dang. There you go getting all princip-ly again... like when you forced me to admit that the ACLU wasn't totally evil. *sigh* I hate it when you do that.

[StarkDaddy]

Nope, he is mad at you for that one.

(You can now say, "to hell w'ich you!" to him.)

[StarkDaddy]

Yes, Chim, we true disciples of Crom realize that angering and not-pleasing Crom is actually a form of pleasing Crom... but one that can only be invoked at epic moments.

Its complex dogma.

[happykat]

You guys are so cute!

[StarkDaddy]

She busted out the Flail of Cuteness!

[happykat]

And hot. Yes, we know. ;)
Oh, Alright!
You caught me at a moment of weakness.
:th_coolio:

[Grendel]

My original point is that the system we have devised requires that we inflict pain (whether mental anguish or physical pain is irrelevent, since we have chosen to do both since before this country began) on those who become wards of the state due to their flaunting of society's rules.
No, it does not require any such thing. What it requires is that we DO NOT cross a line. The constitution primarily states what the government CANNOT do, not what it CAN do. Just because the constitution mentions punishment does not mean that punishment is required.

It took you the better part of fifteen years to achieve your current level of literacy. Moreover this was when your brain was a lean, mean, learning machine (ie. when you were young) and not the cabbage encased in concrete that it is today. Yet somehow, deep beneath the reinforced concrete, there's a little spark of light that says 'wow, if I can do this in fifteen years, anyone else can do it in 1 or 2 days!'
1. It does not take full literacy to fill out an application. It takes basic reading ability and almost no writing ability (most applications don't require you to write full sentences). And most applications for low-level low-pay jobs can be taken home and returned and therefore can be filled out by a third party on their behalf.

2. The state provides free education to all citizens and many non-citizens for 13 grade levels. The failure of many kids (and their families) to take full advantage of this outstanding FREE opportunity is their problem. If the only job you can get after your schooling ends is a McJob then too fu**ing bad for you. You should have taken school more seriously. But, overly forgiving and way too nice a society that we are, most people have access to free literacy courses offered by towns, churches, universities, and charities. So please spare us your continuing bullshit about how tough these criminals have it.

[Mouser]

No, it does not require any such thing. What it requires is that we DO NOT cross a line. The constitution primarily states what the government CANNOT do, not what it CAN do. Just because the constitution mentions punishment does not mean that punishment is required.


It seems to me that telling someone not to do "too much" of a thing is an explicit permission to do "some" of a thing.

Where that line exists has varied somewhat arbitrarily over the years.

Literal torture used to be employed (cat o nine tails, simulated drownings, and heavy weights to mention a few), but now the torture involves extended periods of isolation and confinement.

See the claims of Jose Pedilla's lawyers for lesser examples of the effects of these techniques.

[Grendel]

It seems to me that telling someone not to do "too much" of a thing is an explicit permission to do "some" of a thing.

And that "permission" had been around for ... well forever. I would think putting a limit on it would be viewed as a good thing, not something to be concerned about.

And as for the punishment/rehabilitation debate, two points.
1. They are both parts of the same process.
2. Punishment works. When your kids act up, you punish them. You don't just educate them and make them feel good about themselves and "excuse a system that failed them". You put them in time-out, take away dessert for the night, disallow TV or computer use, or whatever it is that you do. Punishment is an important and necessary part of rehabilitation. Without consequences, there is no true rehabilitation.

[Mouser]

I think it is safe to say that antisocial behavior has a source in some emotional or mental defect. Whether this was caused by childhood trauma or not, I have heard statistics that suggest a connection between child abuse and difficulty in dealing with others as an adult, which would naturally lead to challenges with the legal authorities.

[Grendel]

I agree, to an extent. I do think that the analogy to child-rearing is a bit dubious, because children and felons are significantly different.
I just know Mouser has kids. But punishment works for adults too. An official write-up at the job about getting to work on time tends to put an end to showing up late. And withholding sex can get a lazy husband to take out the garbage.


And I don't see the way that prisons are set up now as being geared towards useful punishment... Rather, I see a grab-bag of vindictive policies blended with bleeding-heart bullshit, each diluting and undermining the other. Penal reform requires a unified, coherent vision informed by a clear purpose rather than ad hoc piecemeal programs.

I'm not sure what "vindictive policies" you mean (I think most of the real punishment in prisons is unofficial, rather than policy). But there sure is a lot of bleeding heart bullshit out there.

My problem with policies of penal reform is that I don't think it works often enough to warrant the absurd cost. We throw billions of dollars at educational and psychological reform programs and the results seem questionable at best. I'd rather see that money given to lower and middle-class families in the form of increased tax rebates and improved services. Better to throw good money at good people than good money after bad (pardon the play on words).

[Grendel]

but that unofficial shit certainly doesn't help. Any attempt at rehabilitation is going to take pretty dedicated and committed staff

Agreed. I would prefer a system in which jail is primarily for punishment with some education for those who have little or no literacy skills. Then, when they get out, assign each ex-con to a willling charity or church organization that acts as guidance counselor, resource, and therapist, helping to get the person back on their feet and in the right frame of mind to be able to handle a normal job and a normal life. Prison just isn't the place to try to reform people. It's like trying to learn Tai Chi in the middle of a busy New York City intersection. Since the jobs probably can't be done at the same time in the same place, why force it. Do one thing right and then do the other thing right.


I agree that the money, as it's spent now, is pretty much a waste. There is entirely too much froufrou bullshit social theory (to use the term 'theory' extremely loosely) getting cash. It fails, however, for more reasons than merely goofy theory; the implementation is also compromised by the ideological schizophrenia that is the penal system. There are too many disparate agendas and beliefs pulling in too many different, often contradictory, directions. And I think that money spent on penal reform could be money well-spent -- it may not be as immediately tangible as a tax-break, but a more effective penal system would be immensely valuable to society and pay for itself awfully quickly.

Agreed. But I would reiterate my paragraph above. Maybe its best to separate out the tasks, get each job in the right hands, and do them both well (and probably for MUCH cheaper).

[Mouser]

My problem with policies of penal reform is that I don't think it works often enough to warrant the absurd cost. We throw billions of dollars at educational and psychological reform programs and the results seem questionable at best. I'd rather see that money given to lower and middle-class families in the form of increased tax rebates and improved services. Better to throw good money at good people than good money after bad (pardon the play on words).


Unfortunately, it's not an either/or issue.

Like it or not, this is a Christian country, and there is a romantic idea in Christian thrology that even the greatest sinner can be reached by the right person or technique.

In countries that focus more on reincarnation or the transmigration of the soul, they're more inclined to throw away the key.

*shrug*

We torture them because we care.

[happykat]

Funny, Mouser.

I did a thirty page research paper on prison systems, prison culture, and how society perpetuates crime and criminality. I want to side with Chim on this...mostly.

BTW, can I cite myself?

[Mouser]

Funny, Mouser.

I did a thirty page research paper on prison systems, prison culture, and how society perpetuates crime and criminality. I want to side with Chim on this...mostly.

BTW, can I cite myself?


Neat.

What if your society IS a prison society, or alternatively promotes prison as a "finishing school" for criminality?

Such has been the case in America for well over a hundred years, according to the first-person accounts I have read.

[Grendel]

Also, I would want to see a more central role for explicit efforts at rehabilitation; personally, I'd like to see some evidence of such before releasing a violent criminal back into society

But then we're getting into the realm of psychology again. Evidence of rehabilitation is hard to come by without field experiments. Especially on an individual basis. You can probably come to the conclusion that a specific technique is a good one ... in general. But looking for rehabilitation in an individual subject is pretty intangible stuff. I'd be happy with a solid program that has a proven track record. Like the "boot camp" program used on troubled teens. If there were similar programs for adults geared towards rehabilitation, then we'd be moving in the right direction.

The other issue with a central role for rehabiitation is that it is likely to involve Federal laws and mandates. And states like Texas just aren't going to accept the same rehabilitation methods as Massachussetts. So you end up with a watered down program that sound good on paper but don't really do the job. If the central role could vary from state to state, it might work.

[Mouser]

Of course, people would need to WANT to be rehabilitated for it to work.

[Grendel]

What if your society IS a prison society,
A ridiculous assertion, considering the percentage of people in prison. The vast majority of citizens never go to prison. And the only reason prison populations are so high in the last few decades is drug crimes and the war on drugs. Most other crime categories are way down.


or alternatively promotes prison as a "finishing school" for criminality? Such has been the case in America for well over a hundred years, according to the first-person accounts I have read.

Highly suspect claim. You can't learn much in the way of marketable criminal skills while in jail. You can't learn how to open a safe, pick a lock, or hotwire a car. What you CAN get are good criminal contacts, which you could get on the outside as well.

[Grendel]

Not all psychology is froufrou and airy-fairy. And while I would want a more central role for rehabilitation, I'd want a proven, working model, not some half-assed bullshit. I was being a bit pie-in-the-sky.
I initially read that as HAIRY fairy. I got a scary image of Freud in pink tights. :D


Absolutely. But like I said, there's an ideal and there's reality. Fiding the intersection is the hard part.

Si senor.

[Mouser]

A ridiculous assertion, considering the percentage of people in prison.

The prison population is transient, by definition. People come and go as their sentences are up or as they get arrested and are being detained for a crime they may or may not have committed.

More people go through prisons than are represented by the percentage of Americans currently in prison.

What you CAN get are good criminal contacts, which you could get on the outside as well.

Unless you didn't have ANY criminal contacts before going in.

What if the reason you are in prison is because you decided to rob a 7-11?

That doesn't require any criminal contacts, but by the time you are done waiting for your bail hearing, you will have had contact with many criminals.

[BattleNymph]

Unless you didn't have ANY criminal contacts before going in.

What if the reason you are in prison is because you decided to rob a 7-11?

That doesn't require any criminal contacts, but by the time you are done waiting for your bail hearing, you will have had contact with many criminals.


My brother (actually all them at varying times) spent some time in prison and the person he was coming out was different than the person he was going in. It was a bit frightening actually.

[Grendel]

The prison population is transient, by definition. People come and go as their sentences are up or as they get arrested and are being detained for a crime they may or may not have committed.

More people go through prisons than are represented by the percentage of Americans currently in prison.

And as I said, most Americans never go to prison ... ever.


What if the reason you are in prison is because you decided to rob a 7-11? That doesn't require any criminal contacts, but by the time you are done waiting for your bail hearing, you will have had contact with many criminals.

Great. But that is hardly worthy of the term "finishing school for criminals".

And why the complaint? Are you suggesting that we have a separate prison for each inmate so that no criminal comes in contact with any other criminal? Solitary confinement for every prisoner? Do you have a better idea or is this just mindless America-bashing?

[Mouser]

And why the complaint? Are you suggesting that we have a separate prison for each inmate so that no criminal comes in contact with any other criminal? Solitary confinement for every prisoner? Do you have a better idea or is this just mindless America-bashing?

I'm well known for bashing America.

A person who commits a crime needs to be surrounded by people who are models of how a person should behave, not other criminals.

A society of criminals will act to perpetuate that culture.

The worst thing we can do to any person who we want to re-enter society as a productive citizen would be to surround them with people who are, by definition, not the kind of people we want them to be when they get out.

Guards included.

[TinSoldier]

I'm well known for bashing America.

A person who commits a crime needs to be surrounded by people who are models of how a person should behave, not other criminals.

A society of criminals will act to perpetuate that culture.

The worst thing we can do to any person who we want to re-enter society as a productive citizen would be to surround them with people who are, by definition, not the kind of people we want them to be when they get out.

Guards included.I must say I've been confused by your statements up to this point, but this is interesting.

How do you propose it be implemented? How do you protect the ones who are supposed to be setting a productive example for the criminal from being corrupted by him? How many good examples do you need for each criminal? How do you determine that they are, indeed, good examples?

Oh, and I can agree that prison dehumanizes the guards as well. A friend of mine from the National Guard with whom I was deployed (but haven't seen for several years) was a guard at the Oregon State Penitentiary. He didn't have a very high opinion of inmates or basically anyone who was seen as a bad guy by him.

[Grendel]

I believe the term you're looking for is "Christian-baiting".

Exactly. Israel has prisons loaded with terrorists and sympathizers. But hey, I'm sure that each of them is surrounded by a dedicated team of rabbis who keep them from other prisoners and show them the proper way to live. :rolleye2:

[Mouser]

Exactly. Israel has prisons loaded with terrorists and sympathizers. But hey, I'm sure that each of them is surrounded by a dedicated team of rabbis who keep them from other prisoners and show them the proper way to live. :rolleye2:

I'm really very interested in why the way Israel, a secular state, treats its prisoner has anything to do with my questions regarding the treatment of prisoners here in America.

True, I am an Israeli by choice as well as an American by birth, but I know very little about their civillian prisons.

[StarkDaddy]

I initially read that as HAIRY fairy.

Considering the topic (i.e. prisoners) I thought that this was an intentional pun.

[Grendel]

I'm really very interested in why the way Israel, a secular state, treats its prisoner has anything to do with my questions regarding the treatment of prisoners here in America.
You are pissing and moaning about American prisons and how prisoners are ... <gasp> ... kept with other prisoners!! The horror!! Meanwhile, every other nation on the planet does exactly the same thing, if not MUCH worse. Including your precious paragon Israel. I'll repeat your absurd post again:

I'm well known for bashing America.

A person who commits a crime needs to be surrounded by people who are models of how a person should behave, not other criminals.

A society of criminals will act to perpetuate that culture.

The worst thing we can do to any person who we want to re-enter society as a productive citizen would be to surround them with people who are, by definition, not the kind of people we want them to be when they get out.

So you start by reasserting your bias against America (I guess that makes you a self-hating American AND a self-hating Jew). Then you go on to tout a ridiculous and impossible standard for rehabilitation that no country on the planet ever has or ever will try to attain and which would obviously put innocent citizens ar risk.

And you keep claiming that prisons are "torture centers". Yet I don't know of any torture centers where inmates get free Internet service, food service according to their religous needs, library access, education, counseling, complete medical coverage, and conjugal visits. Yup, that's real torture. :rolleye2:

[BattleNymph]

I'm well known for bashing America.

A person who commits a crime needs to be surrounded by people who are models of how a person should behave, not other criminals.

A society of criminals will act to perpetuate that culture.

The worst thing we can do to any person who we want to re-enter society as a productive citizen would be to surround them with people who are, by definition, not the kind of people we want them to be when they get out.

Guards included.

I agree that isolating (some) criminals from a criminal environment will help in rehabilitation, but I don't see how that could ever be truly utilized as an effective way to handle our criminals. How many law-abiding citizens want an unreformed criminal, who has perhaps commited violent crimes in their midst?

[Mouser]

And you keep claiming that prisons are "torture centers". Yet I don't know of any torture centers where inmates get free Internet service, food service according to their religous needs, library access, education, counseling, complete medical coverage, and conjugal visits. Yup, that's real torture. :rolleye2:

I am well known for hating America. I complain about America constantly, and I have consistently supported Israel in everything it does without fail.

Because Israel is The Jewish State, don't you know?

:rolleye2:

Grendel, get your head out of your ass for once, so we can discuss the issue I brought up. Ideally, criminals would be reformed through changing their behavior, not stuck in cellblocks and forced to spend all of their time with other criminals.

As it is, America has had a sliding scale from its inception, of what was considered "in the best interests of criminals." I am interested in figuring out what, within our society, might lead toward the idea that prisons are for punishment and away from the idea that prisons are for rehabilitation.

I think Chimaera made an interesting point when he said that prisons are places for people who need a serious "time-out."

If the purpose of prisons is to warehouse people who are being isolated from the rest of American society for their behavior, then there is no reason to punish or rehabilitate, but merely to keep them occupied until their sentence is over. Serious exercise should be prohibited, as it put them and their guards at risk, and they should be fed and treated well until the time comes for their release.

If, on the other hand , the purpose of the prison system is punishment (as it seems from the Constitution) then they should be punished. The question then becomes, what constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment?

I am asking a different question, "Should our goal in sending people to prison be punishment?"

[Origen]

I think what Mouser is saying is that if you want someone to rejoin society, is it really a good idea to put them in a sharktank full of predators who are never going to get out?

[Mouser]

I think what Mouser is saying is that if you want someone to rejoin society, is it really a good idea to put them in a sharktank full of predators who are never going to get out?

Precisely.

[Grendel]

Grendel, get your head out of your ass for once, so we can discuss the issue I brought up. Ideally, criminals would be reformed through changing their behavior, not stuck in cellblocks and forced to spend all of their time with other criminals.

Hey asswipe. I'll ask you again, since you seem to ignore anything that destroys your stupid argument. Do you actually have an idea or are you just whining like a bitch? How do you propose to surround criminals with positive role models and simultaneously keep them away from other criminals. And how the hell do you pay for it. Your imaginary utopian ideal is meaningless since it is impossible. Ideally, every person would have 2 wonderful parents and would grow up to become an adult who commits no crime. That sentiment and 5 cents will get you a few Tootsie rolls.

And I see you also ignored my list of freebies and rights that prisoners get (many of which are not available to citizens who are NOT in jail).

And I see you still have no understanding of the Constitution. It never says anywhere that jails are for punishment or that punishment is required. It simply limits the power of the government, which is a good thing.

[Mouser]

And I see you still have no understanding of the Constitution. It never says anywhere that jails are for punishment or that punishment is required. It simply limits the power of the government, which is a good thing.

The Constitution does not do anything "simply."

Every word and even punctuation marks are mined for significance.

The Constitution acknowledges the purpose of incarceration to be punishment and allows that the government is allowed to punish criminals, so long as that do not do so in a "cruel or unusual" manner.

In limiting government, the Constitution explicitly allows certain behaviors by the representatives of the government.

(Let's not get into the ways it limits the states, or if it was even meant to... It does, that has been upheld let's move on...)

By saying that no citizen shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it is implicitly saying that WITH due process of law, a citizen can be "deprived of life, liberty, or property."

By limiting, it permits.

[Grendel]

The Constitution acknowledges the purpose of incarceration to be punishment
Wrong. Allowing punishment is not the same thing as claiming it to be the purpose of incarceration. And you know that. Stop using piss-poor logic to buttress your already pathetic attempt at an argument.

And I see that you are STILL ignoring the long list of amenities that prisoners have access to in favor of continuing your ridiculous assertion that prisoners are "tortured". :rolleye2:

[Mouser]

Wrong. Allowing punishment is not the same thing as claiming it to be the purpose of incarceration. And you know that. Stop using piss-poor logic to buttress your already pathetic attempt at an argument.

And I see that you are STILL ignoring the long list of amenities that prisoners have access to in favor of continuing your ridiculous assertion that prisoners are "tortured". :rolleye2:

I see no need to acknowledge it, as they do not exist in every prison, nor are they ameneties that most prisoners have, so it's really just a red herring to avoid talking about the basic idea of whether or not the Constitution encourages the punishment of criminals.

[Grendel]

I see no need to acknowledge it, as they do not exist in every prison, nor are they ameneties that most prisoners have

And of course you provide no facts to back any of that up. You also claim that prisons are "torture centers" and you provide no proof of that either.


it's really just a red herring to avoid talking about the basic idea of whether or not the Constitution encourages the punishment of criminals

Another conclusion for which you have shown no evidence. The Constitution does not encourage punishment in the slightest. It merely limits the capacity of the government to apply punishment. Punishment already existed for thousands of years. All the Constitution did was put a cap on it. But nowhere does the Constitution say that the purpose of prisons is punishment.