babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » On the Subject of Prisons

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: On the Subject of Prisons
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 August 2002 06:12 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As inspired by recent comments on other threads about allegedly "country-club" prisons, I thought I'd first mention Sol Wachtler's book.

Second, I wanna get some stuff straight right now, right here.

First of all, the vast majority of North American prisons are for one thing only: the gratitous punishment of prisoners by guards and an entire system with no intent of correcting behavior except in the most brutish and Philistinic manner possible.

Witness the sheriff in Arizona who gleefully puts his prisoners in chain gangs and tent cities in the stifling heat, and is cheered on by a populace accustomed to the vicarious sadism.

Witness the increasing use of jail time even for minor offences in the United States, coupled with "three-strikes-you're-out" laws which are applied indiscriminately, swelling prison populations.

I can't prove this for sure, but I'd be willing to bet there's less leeway given to ex-convicts who are trying to gain proper employment, and this societal discrimination forces them back into the underworld, with the risk of being labelled a reoffender.

I do know this: In over twenty years of increasing harshness towards offenders, how can it possibly be said that we are "treating prisoners lightly"?

These people are run through assembly-line justice, sentenced, bundled off to prison and subjected to the insane rules and regulations of the prison system, enforced by capricious guards who know they have the favor of society when they embody the collective sadistic streak now manifesting ever-more-openly among individuals in this continent.

And then after all this nobody gives a shit about these inmates and what'll happen to them when they get out of prison.

We just drop them into the memory hole, and then express surprise at the increasing crime rate as these people come back out and reoffend, AND suffer the added unstated crime of being hypocrites by refusing to cut these people any slack at all when they try to reintegrate into society.

But after all, they're only criminals, not worthy of being considered human beings.

Addendum:

How do I square this with my statements about rapists and pedophiles?

Because they constitute a vast minority of the prison population. Half the prison population in the USA is "in" for one category alone: Drug-related charges.

In short, these are not, by and large, incorrigible offenders. Those that are incorrigible should indeed be treated as such, but extending the same brutish treatment to other classes of offenders is just 100% stupid.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 August 2002 06:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you, Doc. I concur heartily.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 23 August 2002 06:22 PM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Me too.
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 23 August 2002 06:29 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yep.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 23 August 2002 06:45 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
I am not sure I understand, Doc.

quote:
But after all, they're only criminals, not worthy of being considered human beings. ...How do I square this with my statements about rapists and pedophiles?

Am I misreading this, or are you criticising others (or those in power at least) of having a collective sadistic streak for the treatment of what they (not you) consider criminals, but then you are happy to see what you (and they) consider true criminals treated in a brutal sadistic fashion, because they are beyond your pale? If you think brutish punishment should be meted out according to whom you think is incorrigible, are you not claiming some sort of personal differentiation rather than legal or corrective formula?

Or are you saying that brutal treatment is fine as long as it is only aimed at those who are considered brutal? That it is ok to treat animals like animals because they are animals?

What purpose do you think prison serves, or do you think it should serve different purposes according to the crime or the criminal?

Thanks.


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 23 August 2002 06:53 PM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is shameful that the US, with about 5% of the world's population, has about 20% of the world's prisoners.

I've heard that around 1/3 of Canadian prisoners are serving time for non-payment of fines, but that seems high to me.

A friend of mine served 90 days a couple of years ago for being stupid and driving and drinking, and after he got out, he told me that he felt like he was in crime school. He also said that drugs are ten times easier to get inside than out.


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 August 2002 07:09 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Am I misreading this, or are you criticising others (or those in power at least) of having a collective sadistic streak for the treatment of what they (not you) consider criminals, but then you are happy to see what you (and they) consider true criminals treated in a brutal sadistic fashion, because they are beyond your pale? If you think brutish punishment should be meted out according to whom you think is incorrigible, are you not claiming some sort of personal differentiation rather than legal or corrective formula?

The rolling eyes after that comment indicated my sarcastic cant as to the use of the term "they're only criminals".

To answer you, the legal standard involved as well as historical experience answer us as to what violent crimes should be treated with the utmost severity, and those are rape, pedophilia, and murder. It is the greatest temptation of governments to increase the penalties across the board for all kinds of crimes, and in the 16th century, Great Britain was a simple marvel at the range and breadth of crimes that were covered by the punishment known as "hanging". I believe stealing food could be punishable by hanging, in point of fact.

It didn't make Great Britain any safer, and by the 20th century its government was far wiser and chose to apply more care in its legal codes.

So in my mind there are very few offences that actually merit the criminal being treated with rather less concern for his or her comfort or future potential to society.

quote:
Or are you saying that brutal treatment is fine as long as it is only aimed at those who are considered brutal? That it is ok to treat animals like animals because they are animals?

There is just some people you can't fix. I'm a realist and I accept that. However this is a far cry from the persistent right-wing yapping about ever-harsher punishments for all manner of crimes and the wanton encouraging of callousness towards all prisoners merely because they have been sentenced by a judge.

Please be careful about your distinctions!

quote:
What purpose do you think prison serves, or do you think it should serve different purposes according to the crime or the criminal?

Ideally, prison serves to rehabilitate and punish.

In practice we in North America emphasize far too much the "punish" part and far too little the "rehabilitate" part.

Therefore it serves simply to mindlessly punish and apply a sort of "let God sort them out" attitude as to who will be successfully cured of the desire to commit crimes.

By contrast, Europe has applied intelligence in its criminal codes and its sentencing procedures, and this shows up in their violent crime rates and in their recidivism rates.

I refer you to the case of Finland vs the rest of Scandinavia that someone else referred to elsewhere on Babble.

Briefly, Finland was applying Soviet-style techniques of simply tossing prisoners in jail and letting them rot, and applying strict sentences for all manner of crimes. In the 1960s, they decided it wasn't working and changed the entire focus of their prison system. They now have such novelties as fines based on income, and careful, but planned, reintegration of offenders into society - similar to Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

So by and large, prison should serve as a learning experience and a finely-tuned corrective tool instead of the blunt instrument it is now. But for the minority of offenders who cannot be rehabilitated, then locking them up will have to do.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 23 August 2002 07:24 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is just some people you can't fix. I'm a realist and I accept that. However this is a far cry from the persistent right-wing yapping about ever-harsher punishments for all manner of crimes and the wanton encouraging of callousness towards all prisoners merely because they have been sentenced by a judge.

Please be careful about your distinctions!


I tried to be - I made clear, I hope, that I was trying to understand your attitude towards the 3 areas of crime you mention rather than implying you have a blanket desire for callousness. However, your first post (though not the one above) did seem to imply that you were happy to treat certain criminals with callousness, but I realise you don't advocate that.

For the incorrigible, prison serves one major purpose - protection (of the public foremost and them second). And to protect the public as well as dealing with very disturbed minds (they are debating in the UK whether the guy who killed those 2 girls is insane - I would argue that by definition, a child killer MUST be insane - alas, the legal definition is from the 19th century and the lawyers and psychiatrists will tie themselves in knots over it), dealing with the disturbed minds of many of the people who commit the worst crimes, prison does not need to be harsh, it just needs to be secure.

As someone (I forget who) said, prison is not where you go FOR punishment, it IS the punishment. There is no need for it to be a harsh environment, loss of freedom IS the punishment.

(Come on, Slick, where are you!?!? )

edited for sense.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Apemantus ]


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 23 August 2002 08:04 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is probably Apocrapha, but the math seems to make it probable that it happened many times.

It is said that in public hangings in England, while pick pockets swung on the gallows slowly strangling, their as yet uncaught brotherhood was working the gawking crowds who watched.

So much for deterent.

To me, locking someone up and depriving them of liberty is a HUGE punishment, and I think we underestimate the effects of it on those convicted of breaking our laws.

My ex's step brother, when talking about a minimum security jail he was in, and all the stuff they were allowed to have said, "But the door still locked behind you, and you couldn't leave if you wanted."

I think there are criminals beyond our capability to rehabilitate, and who present such a risk to public safety they have to be locked up. A secure facility on the north shore of Baffin Island is a good place for such people.

Having said that, I think it should be secure for them also. No drugs, no rapes, no brutilization. (other than the deprivation of society)

I would have few distractions from thier condition, too.

A fate worse than death. A living death. A sentence that comes as close as we can to justice, in the worst cases.

We have a responsibility, you know, to those we find merit prison. We are charged with thier safety for one thing. If we want to make exposure to drugs and beatings and rape part of their sentence, then we ought to have the balls to put it there in the criminal code. But we don't. So every time this happens to a prisoner, we are guilty of assault, of murder etc.

Restitution should be a much higher priority in our system, I think. The onus of restitution might be "punishment" enough for most people.

Looking at an individuals root cause for their offence should be a priority also, and rehabilitation has to address this.

However, in doing so we often run into the danger of giving those who transgress our laws an advantage that others who are law abiding don't have.

That's bad governing, but might be addressed by "rehabilitating" disadvantaged people before they fall into the crime trap.

If I was a judge, I think I'd sentence most petty criminals to a high school degree, more than actual jail time, for example.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 August 2002 09:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If we want to make exposure to drugs and beatings and rape part of their sentence, then we ought to have the balls to put it there in the criminal code. But we don't. So every time this happens to a prisoner, we are guilty of assault, of murder etc.

Yes, yes, yes.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 24 August 2002 06:45 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the 1970s and 1980s a prison reform group called Groupe d'information sur les prisons was active in France (Michel Foucault was among the more famous names.) One of the things they fought for was the abolition of the Criminal Record. With the CR, individual perpetrators gain an identity, that of the "criminal", and the CR functions as sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Every new entry to your criminal record helps you get a harsher punishment... it kinda spirals out of control. Once you're in it, seems like there's no way out.

Makes you think.


From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 August 2002 08:13 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, one way to help the situation would be to make it illegal to ask a prospective employee if he or she has a criminal record.

A criminal record should really only be used to guide courts of law in determining sentencing for repeat offenders, and for law enforcement to determine the relative degree of risk in apprehending said offender.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2002 09:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, criminal records should be like other personal information that the government has on you - only available to the person in question, or to the police or other authorized people.

Then again, though, I think I would want the criminal record of someone who has been convicted of sexual assault or child molesting to be accessible by employers like schools and day care centres. I wouldn't like the idea of my son's day care centre or school having people working there who were formerly rapists or molesters.

In fact, even with things like drug crimes - I'm not sure I would want a former drug dealer working at a school. Then again, I have known reformed drug dealers and drug addicts so maybe that's not fair. I don't know.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 24 August 2002 10:49 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the most part criminal record access is controlled by provincial Human Rights legislation. In BC asking about criminal records is not allowed unless the position involves handling children. Indirect question can be asked "Are you bondable", but only if the position requires it. To ask about a criminal record, a prospective employer must show how this is directly applicable to the position.

After 5 years removing a criminal record is a fairly routine procedure (for non-sex offenders). The 'Queen's pardon' removes the data from public accessible databases (criminal record searches). What police have in their database I imagine is another thing, and it does nothing to take it off the US and other databases. This is another story again (as Ross Regliatti can attest to).

My understanding was that the changing demographic of Canada had dropped the crime rate significantly. On top of that, budget conscious governments (they say it is from enlightenment), have moved more people to diversion (electronic monitoring and such). In BC, I just read we have gone from serious overhousing to closing prisons due to overcapacity.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
rosebuds
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2399

posted 24 August 2002 11:22 PM      Profile for rosebuds     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What shocks me is that property offences are generally punished more severely than human offences. A stock broker gone bad is far more likely to get jail time than a drunk driver or a wife beater...

There's something wrong in a society where we value money over life and the quality thereof...


From: Meanwhile, on the other side of the world... | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 24 August 2002 11:47 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is that true?
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 August 2002 12:18 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What shocks me is that property offences are generally punished more severely than human offences. A stock broker gone bad is far more likely to get jail time than a drunk driver or a wife beater...

There's something wrong in a society where we value money over life and the quality thereof...


This doesn't sound right. Oftentimes "monetary offences" tend to be treated rather lightly, with a fine rather than jail time, leaving the bulk of the money in the hands of the scam artist rather than being redistributed to his or her victims.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 25 August 2002 03:04 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are points about our system being as too much slanted to the protection of property rather than the protection of the person. However the example of the rich swindler was not the right one. Take the poor and uneducated, who are being abandoned by cuts to legal aid. It is more likely that they are unable to make coherent arguments for alternative sentencing and will end up in prison by a collective inertia.

Has else anyone seen the NFB documentary "A warehouse of Bodies". It is a graphic depiction of the total senselessness of imprisonment as a personality modelling tool.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cate
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2958

posted 25 August 2002 03:59 PM      Profile for Cate     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oftentimes "monetary offences" tend to be treated rather lightly, with a fine rather than jail time, leaving the bulk of the money in the hands of the scam artist rather than being redistributed to his or her victims.

I think some courts are trying to address that with compensation orders which are paid to the victim, not the courts. If the "scam artist" or whatever doesn't pay up, then he goes to jail. You'd be surprised how quickly folks are willing to pony up when they spot a few extra weeks in the Remand Centre in their future.

That said, I agree with the comments that poverty is the cause of most of the imprisonment in Canada. Which, quite frankly, is the real crime.


From: out in the west | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 August 2002 04:22 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do not think that monetary crime is treated more harshly than "human crime", by which I take it we mean crimes of violence.

However, some crimes which are mixed, that is, involve both violence and money, do get very harsh treatment.

For example, any robbery is treated far more harshly than the corresponding assault. (Robbery is basically defined as "assault plus theft".

And there is a special category, bank robbery, which is REALLY treated seriously. Defraud someone of $20,000, and you will serve 1% of the jail time which you will get for passing a threatening note to the teller and making off with the same $20,000.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca