Put him in with Bubba! LOL

[Erik Mesoy]

Godwynn, would you care to comment on the points I raised regarding the rule of law in my first post at the start of the thread?

 

[Godwynn]

Incarceration. Not institutionalised humiliation, not ritualised degredation, not torture, not abuse.

Agreed, agreed, agreed, and agreed.

If you want to make it open and write this rape and abuse into the law, Constitution and civilised society be damned, then do so.

I have no idea how this "ZOMG HE WANTS HOMOSEXUALS AND DOMINATRIXES TO RAPE ALL CRIMINALS WITH TEH STRAP-ONS!!1111" started.

Otherwise, don't hide behind winking hedged "not that I endorse it" style platitudes because the attitude you're showing is exactly what leads to society's tacit endorsement of this idea that prisoners are tainted and besmirched and essentially not worthy of being considered human.

First off, there is no way to stop it, much like stopping crime. We can crack down, but it won't end completely.

Secondly, there are prisoners who are no longer deserving of human rights.

That "prisoner rights" gets equated to "soft on crime" at all is indicitive how how deeply rotten the entire situation has become. It's a poisonous situation that means the simple remedy required (money and political will) just does not exist.

I also agree here.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I have no idea how this "ZOMG HE WANTS HOMOSEXUALS AND DOMINATRIXES TO RAPE ALL CRIMINALS WITH TEH STRAP-ONS!!1111" started.

Probably around here:

Juries and judges usually understand that when somebody gets thrown in prison, they get raped by other people in the prison, especially if they are there for crimes against children. If they take this into account when determining sentences, then the argument against Bubba becomes weaker.

(bold mine)

 

[Godwynn]

Godwynn, would you care to comment on the points I raised regarding the rule of law in my first post at the start of the thread?

My apologies. I missed it.

Problems with "Put him in with Bubba" include:
*It damages the rule of law by making possible additional punishment dependent on other prisoners rather than sentencing.

Life isn't fair.

*It damages the rule of law some more by making that punishment come in forms that the judicial system not only doesn't sanction, but often imposes penalties for if committed elsewhere.

I don't fully understand the last part about committed elsewhere? A crime committed in a different geographic area?

*It takes an absolute crap, so to speak, on the rule of law by creating a largely strength-dependent hierarchy among prisoners, when the legal system is allegedly supposed to make people equal before the law.

The prisoners created this strength-based hierarchy themselves, the law didn't. They should be used to that anyway, seeing as how most criminals use their superior strength to get what they want through force.

What goes around comes around I guess.

Furthermore, and more indirectly, by threatening additional punishment for a crime, possibly worse than the original sentence handed down by the judge or whoever, it creates an unbalanced incentive system for a minor criminal to commit a larger crime to cover up his smaller crime, if the decrease in the risk of discovery compensates for the increased jail time or similar.

What? A criminal would want to commit a worse crime to cover a small one?

 

[Godwynn]

Probably around here:


(bold mine)

I understand now. Thanks.

A person walking through Detroit at night knows that the possibility of getting robbed is much higher. I like to think that people try to avoid situations that would put them in danger. The same should go for the criminals.

There is a possibility that going to jail will mean getting raped, hence they should try to avoid going to prison.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

My apologies. I missed it.

No worries, the thread sort of ran away.

Life isn't fair.

This can be said about pretty much anything, including criminals getting off scot-free. IMO, "Life isn't fair" should be a purely descriptive statement, not an excuse or a reason for anything.

I don't fully understand the last part about committed elsewhere? A crime committed in a different geographic area?

Inside v. outside of prison.

The prisoners created this strength-based hierarchy themselves, the law didn't. They should be used to that anyway, seeing as how most criminals use their superior strength to get what they want through force.

What goes around comes around I guess.

For my response to "What comes around etc.", see my response to "Life isn't fair".

What? A criminal would want to commit a worse crime to cover a small one?

Yes, if it makes prison somewhat less likely. I'll try to avoid the advanced maths:

Case 1:
Criminal C beats up Person P into unconsciousness and takes P's wallet containing thousands of dollars. P, upon waking up, may or may not identify C due to e.g. memory loss, not seeing C's face properly, etc.
C then has a x1x percent chance of getting x2x amount of punishment for assault and theft.

Case 2:
C beats up P, realises that P may identify C later, and strangles or otherwise kills P, taking care not to leave fingerprints or the like. C then takes P's wallet as before, and P cannot later identify C.
C then has a x3x percent chance of getting x4x amount of punishment for murder and theft.

The system should be set up so that even if x3x is smaller than x1x, the product (x3x * x4x) should be larger than (x1x * x2x), because the reverse effectively says to game-theoretic criminals (bear with me on this) that they're better off committing murder than assault if it prevents the victim identifying them. (Further factors such as other witnesses can be dealt with as necessary, I just simplified them out.)

See what can happen when you mess with x2x and x4x by introducing additional punishment of an unknown magnitude ?

 

[Godwynn]

This can be said about pretty much anything, including criminals getting off scot-free. IMO, "Life isn't fair" should be a purely descriptive statement, not an excuse or a reason for anything.

We cannot strategically place criminals into cells depending on race, sexual orientation, religion, weight, muscle mass, IQ, etc. Getting stuck with 'Bubba' is the luck of the draw.

Inside v. outside of prison.

I think prison rape should be stopped if it is found out. The problem is finding it. My original statement that started this mess was about a deterrent. We cannot stop all prison rape. It's a fact, I am not endorsing it, or sanctioning it, I am saying that it should be thought about before committing a crime.

Yes, if it makes prison somewhat less likely. I'll try to avoid the advanced maths:

Case 1:
Criminal C beats up Person P into unconsciousness and takes P's wallet containing thousands of dollars. P, upon waking up, may or may not identify C due to e.g. memory loss, not seeing C's face properly, etc.
C then has a x1x percent chance of getting x2x amount of punishment for assault and theft.

Case 2:
C beats up P, realises that P may identify C later, and strangles or otherwise kills P, taking care not to leave fingerprints or the like. C then takes P's wallet as before, and P cannot later identify C.
C then has a x3x percent chance of getting x4x amount of punishment for murder and theft.

The system should be set up so that even if x3x is smaller than x1x, the product (x3x * x4x) should be larger than (x1x * x2x), because the reverse effectively says to game-theoretic criminals (bear with me on this) that they're better off committing murder than assault if it prevents the victim identifying them. (Further factors such as other witnesses can be dealt with as necessary, I just simplified them out.)

See what can happen when you mess with x2x and x4x by introducing additional punishment of an unknown magnitude ?

Alright, I think I understand what you are saying, although I don't know what the x1x, and x2x, etc.. mean. Is that some special math character on that side of the pond?

I suggest that we kill the person back.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Alright, I think I understand what you are saying, although I don't know what the x1x, and x2x, etc.. mean. Is that some special math character on that side of the pond?

I suggest that we kill the person back.

No, they're just metasyntactic variables indicating "fill in with whatever number is appropriate".

 

[CaptainF]

Bob gets caught smoking some pot, and has two kilos in it in his room. He goes to prison for several years. There he is raped and brutalized, and when he is released, he's lost any sense of empathy or respect for law and order. He kills and rapes a woman in an alley, but is subsequently caught, and is sent to prison for the rest of his natural life. There he brutalizes the "newbies" and the cycle continues.

Agreed. It's sad that people who get caught for something as innocuous as smoking weed get thrown in prison with rapists and other scum.

 

[Integral]

No, they're just metasyntactic variables indicating "fill in with whatever number is appropriate".

I'm a bit late to the thread, but I saw your earlier post and want to make sure I understand the argument. I don't like your funky little symbols.

Criminal C robs person P. He has a j% chance of being caught and faces punishment level x.

Criminal C robs person P, but realizes that he may get caught; in order to deter being caught, he kills/incapacitates P, wipes the place clean, etc. C now has k% chance of being caught, and faces punishment level y.

Now, punishment y > punishment x, while k% < j%. So we want the expected punishment of y*k% to be larger than the expected punishment of x*j%. That way, we dis-incentivize criminals to perform the harsher crime--namely, the one netting y amount of punishment.

Adding in exogenous factors (like prison rape) can change both x and y in potentially unpredictable ways.

Is that a fair summary?

--------

As a gut feeling, there needs to be enforcement to prevent "in-house" punishment, as that runs contrary to the justice system. Further, prisoners who are further victimized while in prison are probably more likely to commit crimes once they get out--they've been desensitized to the system, they've been wronged past what the justice system required, and the psychological issues could play a factor as well.

Then again, the additional monitering costs (more guards, better surveillance, etc) may be prohibitively high. It's impossible to prevent all "in-house" punishment. Still, that doesn't mean that we should make some effort to ensure that prisoners aren't being victimized...

 

[Shylock]

They should have thought about that before committing a crime.

What if they didn't and got convicted anyway?

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem I have is, how? Sure it's easy to say we will hire more prison guards, etc. The budget in Illinois is strained as is. As far as I am concerned we need to care for the upstanding citizen than to divert resources to help the incarcerated.

I think the really easy answer would be to legalise pot. We'd free up massive resources, happily apply some of them to reducing victimisation in prisons, and then whistle to the bank with the rest.

... but that's not for this thread.

Would you be willing to pay more taxes if it involved a drastic reduction in prison-victimisation? Would you be will to have a tax break, if it resulted in more victimisation?

 

[Godwynn]

What if they didn't and got convicted anyway?

That's no different from what happens today is it?

I think the really easy answer would be to legalise pot. We'd free up massive resources, happily apply some of them to reducing victimisation in prisons, and then whistle to the bank with the rest.

Agreed.

Would you be willing to pay more taxes if it involved a drastic reduction in prison-victimisation? Would you be will to have a tax break, if it resulted in more victimisation?

You would really have to give me some numbers here before I can commit to a tax raise or decrease.

As far as the tax break goes, there should be enough guards and staff to keep themselves safe while working in prison.

 

[Ecofarm]

I have no sympathy for criminals. Crime and Punishment along with Gun Rights are where my very conservative streak shows. I'm fairly liberal everywhere else, promise!

Market policy (invis hand), private property, strong military, employers rights, minimum wage, education subsidies, welfare? You didn't really mean "everywhere", right? "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your libbie cry-baby ear".

Then again, it is criminals we are dealing with, and they are far from intelligent.

Have you been to walmart lately? I'd put the average IQ in that place ~85. I'm not sure how stupid criminals in general are, but it cannot be too much worse than the scurrying public at large (and I do mean large). They're uneducated, from a formal standpoint, but unintelligent? I'm not sure there is evidence for this. Stupid = criminal? Think not.

Secondly, there are prisoners who are no longer deserving of human rights.

Therefore, there are people who no longer deserve human rights. Right? I wonder, if in some people's estimation (Mao, Kimmy, etc), you would be so deserving of them. While advocating the withdrawl of basic human rights, take a look at your company (Saddam). No withdrawal of basic human rights is acceptable. To think otherwise is barbaric.

 

[Godwynn]

Market policy (invis hand), private property, strong military, employers rights, minimum wage, education subsidies, welfare? You didn't really mean "everywhere", right? "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your libbie cry-baby ear".

I guess the term "Market Liberal" means nothing to you?

Have you been to walmart lately? I'd put the average IQ in that place ~85. I'm not sure how stupid criminals in general are, but it cannot be too much worse than the scurrying public at large (and I do mean large). They're uneducated, from a formal standpoint, but unintelligent? I'm not sure there is evidence for this. Stupid = criminal? Think not.

Unfortunately I have been to Wal*Mart lately, damned place doesn't even carry a wireless laptop mouse.

Let's take a handful of smart people and a handful of stupid people and see which ones have a longer criminal background.

Therefore, there are people who no longer deserve of human rights. Right? I wonder, if in some people's estimation (Mao, Kimmy, etc), you would be so deserving of them. While advocating the withdrawl of basic human rights, take a look at your company (Saddam). No withdrawal of basic human rights is acceptable. To think otherwise is barbaric.

Murderers and rapists have forfeited their rights.

 

[Che Guava]

Murderers and rapists have forfeited their rights.

Human rights, Godwynn. Unless you think becoming a criminal completely removes your humanity, then they still deserve basic rights.

 

[Godwynn]

Human rights, Godwynn. Unless you think becoming a criminal completely removes your humanity, then they still deserve basic rights.

I'm sure my opinion of the death penalty is well known 'round these parts.

 

[Che Guava]

I'm sure my opinion of the death penalty is well known 'round these parts.

So what crimes, IYHO, are worthy of negating someone's human rights?

 

[Godwynn]

So what crimes, IYHO, are worthy of negating someone's human rights?

Murder
Rape
Kidnapping
Child Abuse

Probably many more, I can think of those off the top of my head.

 

[Ecofarm]

I guess the term "Market Liberal" means nothing to you?

Murderers and rapists have forfeited their rights.

Semantics. You're right wing, economically. That = conservative (in the US). Don't go trying to pull some euro-semantic, slick Willie rhetoric on me.

You advocate a death penalty for rape conviction? And 2nd degree murder? Surely you can see how this is a very marginal opinion. The idea that anyone forfeits basic human rights at all is pretty whacko. What about if they take away your x-box? Then I could see a slow painful death being a reasonable punishment, but otherwise, I dunno.