Prisons

[Norsefire]

Summary findings

On June 30, 2008 —
– 2,310,984 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails – an increase of 0.8% from yearend 2007, less than the average annual growth of 2.4% from 2000-2007.
– 1,540,805 sentenced prisoners were under state or federal jurisdiction.
– there were an estimated 509 sentenced prisoners per 100,000 U.S. residents – up from 506 at yearend 2007.
– the number of women under the jurisdiction of state or federal prison authorities increased 1.2% from yearend 2007, reaching 115,779, and the number of men rose 0.7%, totaling 1,494,805.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

The prison population in America is bloated; frankly, alot of the people in prison are in there for victimless crimes, especially from that 'war on drugs'


That's an issue, but here's my main question: are prisons moral? Is it moral to hold people in prisons? To arrest them?

I had a thread a while back comparing the death penalty to life in prison and asked 'which is more barbaric'. The results were split between the two.

I find that it is inconsistent to support prisons, but oppose the death penalty; if the death penalty is murder, then is arresting people 'kidnapping'? Is holding them against their will a 'hostage' scenario? It's absurd.

It's interesting, in a way; if the state does not have the 'right' to execute people, why does it have the right to even punish people in general? Putting someone in prison for life is, effectively, taking away their life.

Rehabilitation could be said to be more 'practical', but we don't rehabilitate people for 'justice'. Justice is tied closely with revenge; revenge is getting even, it is about fairness; the difference with revenge and justice is justice is revenge undertaken by the state.

If prisons are not immoral, why is the death penalty immoral (if you indeed find it immoral)? If you give somebody life in prison, you might as well just execute them.

The death penalty is not immoral; prisons are not immoral. There are people that simply cannot be 'rehabilitated', and whose actions are so heinous that they deserve their death. Their execution is both a permanent solution, and is justice. There is no 'two wrongs don't make a right' argument to be made, because the death penalty is not wrong.

 

[James R]

It is worth mentioning that the US has 4% of the world's population and 25% of its prison population.

I find that it is inconsistent to support prisons, but oppose the death penalty

You obviously are unaware of the many arguments against the death penalty. I suggest you do a little research.

It's interesting, in a way; if the state does not have the 'right' to execute people, why does it have the right to even punish people in general?

Because those people choose to live in society and therefore agree to the social contract.

There are people that simply cannot be 'rehabilitated', and whose actions are so heinous that they deserve their death.

You weren't saying that about Hitler a couple of days ago, and he was one of those ultimately responsible for the deaths of over 6 million civilisans, let alone all the soldiers killed in WWII.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Modern penitentiaries only started to developed in the 19th century (before then "jails" were used to hold people awaiting trial, to assure they showed up, but not the convicted). Their purpose was to improve the situation for criminals by eliminating mutilation and shaming punishments that were common before that tme. The underlying goal is *not* to hold them and deny them liberty as a punishment, but to reform them. The very word "penitentiary" reflects what the designers of the new prisons wanted: pennance and atonement.

Most of what Americans think they know about prisons is untrue. Most prisons are not like the HBO show "Oz", but when we see prisons, we tend to see the worst examples because those drive ratings.

 

[swarm]

are prisons moral? Is it moral to hold people in prisons? To arrest them?

What insane assylums were for mental illness, prisons are to social illness.

People should be restrained only if they are a clear threat to themselves or others. Other than that they need to be helped to overcome their problem and be allowed to make restitution to those they hurt.

 

[Enmos]

People should be restrained only if they are a clear threat to themselves or other. Other than that they need to be helped to overcome their problem and allowed to make restitution to those they hurt.

In all cases ?

 

[PieAreSquared]

In all cases ?

we'd need a lot more prisons huh?

 

[Enmos]

we'd need a lot more prisons huh?

I didn't look at it like that, but you could be right depending on how you define being 'a threat to yourself or others'.

What I meant was that sometimes people cannot be helped and are not going to make amends. Psychopathic serial killers for example, should we really spend good money on their 'recovery' ?

In any case, I think prisoners that have been given a life sentence should be given a choice; prison for life or death.

 

[PieAreSquared]

In any case, I think prisoners that have been given a life sentence should be given a choice; prison for life or death

i tend to agree with that ...once we make that offer to the terminal ill

I feel the courts should make the death sentence call until then

 

[Enmos]

In any case, I think prisoners that have been given a life sentence should be given a choice; prison for life or death

i tend to agree with that ...once we make that offer to the terminal ill

I feel the courts should make the death sentence call until then

I agree, but euthanasia already exists though.

 

[PieAreSquared]

limited availability

why should a convict get a choice when most citizens here in the US at least, would have to move

 

[Enmos]

limited availability

why should a convict get a choice when most citizens here in the US at least, would have to move

I see your point. While my country is pretty liberal this sort of thing can still be difficult.
I guess we'll have to abolish religion first

 

[PieAreSquared]

I see your point. While my country is pretty liberal this sort of thing can still be difficult.
I guess we'll have to abolish religion first

Did your country abolish religion ?

Any tips you would like to share

 

[Enmos]

Did your country abolish religion ?

Any tips you would like to share

No, that's why it can still be difficult. Christian hospitals and care homes simply refuse even if all the criteria are met.

 

[PieAreSquared]

you don't execute people in your country..correct?

 

[Enmos]

you don't execute people in your country..correct?

Correct. And I am against capital punishment myself.
But if a prisoner wants to die rather than gobble up taxpayers money the rest of his miserable life, I say go ahead.

 

[PieAreSquared]

Can you die if you want to?..not being a prisoner?

I'm for capital punishment btw... there are some here that shouldn't be

 

[PieAreSquared]

what I mean is... if I'm tired of the grind...I can go to the mall and shoot a dozen people.

then some how I gain a right someone who hasn't offed someone gets

 

[PieAreSquared]

I'm making a list

 

[Enmos]

Can you die if you want to?..not being a prisoner?

Not just when you want to. You have to be terminally ill or in unbearable pain, preferably both..
Edit: I don't know the exact rules though.

I'm for capital punishment btw... there are some here that shouldn't be

You mean like 6 billion of us ?
Anyway I think there's too great a risk of error in capital punishment. After all you are dealing with killing a person..
And I don't think records show that the threat of capital punishment helps to fight crime in any significant way.

 

[PieAreSquared]

And I don't think records show that the threat of capital punishment helps to find crime in any significant way.

not since they stopped public hangings