Why the hell have people allowed prisons to exist this long?

[Kukulofori]

Nobody even really thinks they work, so what the hell gives?

[scarletghoul]

What are the alternatives?

[Decolonize The Left]

Nobody even really thinks they work, so what the hell gives?

There are several main reasons:
1) Belief in retributive punishment. "An eye for an eye" is a long-standing moral belief which, when enacted systematically, provides us with a prison system.
2) Money. Prisons make money both for the government and the capitalist class. Many prisons are becoming privatized, and new ones are being constructed.
3) Class warfare. Who's in prison? The working class.

- August

[Comrade B]

Because I would prefer that the guy that shoved a gun into my friend's mouth not continue to live next door to her...

What do you suggest?

[Nils T.]

I would suggest supressing the motives he has for shoving guns into people's mouthes. Or restricting his access to guns. Maybe tickling him until proper socialization, or sending him away. Or sending you and your friend away.

[JimmyJazz]

^haha wtf

[Nils T.]

How is it less sensible than putting him in jail ?

[LOLseph Stalin]

What are the alternatives?


Alternatives? Let's see. Under a Communist society I wouldn't see any need for crimes to be committed as everybody would have what they need. I think poverty=crime because people are desperate to have their basic needs met. This isn't happening any time soon so they take things into their own hands. However if there does happen to be a crime committed I would support the use of labour camps. At least that way they would be giving something back to society. Obviously these labour camps wouldn't be harsh or cruel like Stalin's system.

[Qayin]

However if there does happen to be a crime committed I would support the use of labour camps. At least that way they would be giving something back to society. Obviously these labour camps wouldn't be harsh or cruel like Stalin's system.
:thumbdown:

[Pogue]

If you're going to create a revolution where you tell the workers we're gonna abolish prisons, see how popular you get.

Quite simply, when someone commits a barbaric crime, they have to bes eperated from society. There are two ways to do this - killing them, or locking them up. Nothing else will work.

It's bollocks to assume under communism, there will be no crime. Communism isn't a magical utopian wonderland, its an socia and economic system of relations and organisation. People will still be dickheads, there will be petty fights over who shagged whos girlfriend, etc. Yes, alot of problems will be eliminated, but it takes time, and certainly many will remain. And so we need prisons, unless we just shoot all the criminals, which obviously isn't (or I suppose some would say it is).

[Kernewek]

I fail to see how a socilism would eliminate crime simply because not all crime is financily motivated, personaly I think prisons are essential simply to keep potentioly dangerous people off the streets

problem with the current system is the focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation

[Bitter Ashes]

Yeah. Crimes tend to fall into 3 catagories.
Greed, nessicity and passion.
The first two would be elimated and accounts for the vast majority of crime, but you cant do anything about passion. These kinds of crimes are not usualy coldly calculated though, which would involve a conscious descion to betray morals. Taking that on board, a punishment for that kind of crime would be wrong, however steps would be needed to ensure it didnt happen again.
Methods of that I'm very poor at describing, so I'll leave that to somebody else :)

[Dr.Claw]

Yeah. Crimes tend to fall into 3 catagories.
Greed, nessicity and passion.

What about hate?

[Sean]

Actually, Community Restorative Justice (http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/?Welcome)is something I see as a valid alternative to prison. Its basically used in northern ireland by communities out of mistrust of the police and legal system anyway.

[#FF0000]

If you're going to create a revolution where you tell the workers we're gonna abolish prisons, see how popular you get.

Quite simply, when someone commits a barbaric crime, they have to bes eperated from society. There are two ways to do this - killing them, or locking them up. Nothing else will work.

What happened to you being an anarchist, boyo?


It's bollocks to assume under communism, there will be no crime. Communism isn't a magical utopian wonderland, its an socia and economic system of relations and organisation. People will still be dickheads, there will be petty fights over who shagged whos girlfriend, etc. Yes, alot of problems will be eliminated, but it takes time, and certainly many will remain. And so we need prisons, unless we just shoot all the criminals, which obviously isn't (or I suppose some would say it is).

Of course anarchism won't just eliminate all crime. It's still something we would have to deal with, though to a much lesser extent. However, I suggest we actually, maybe, stick to our principles when dealing with it. For example, there are alternatives such as Community Restorative Justice, as Taig said. We can resort to rehabilitation. Or, as a last resort, cast them out. There are plenty of ways to deal with crime without sacrificing our principles.

Reccomended reading: Malatesta's Crime and Punishment (http://www.revleft.com/vb/flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/crime_and_punishment.html)

[Nils T.]

If you're going to create a revolution where you tell the workers we're gonna abolish prisons, see how popular you get.See how popular you get when you tell the workers we're gonna abolish private property.
Revolution is about progress and reason, not popularity, and anyway you can't create one by telling the workers what to do.

[Bitter Ashes]

What about hate?
I personaly place that in the 3rd catagory.
Passion does not exclusivly mean the errotic sense. It's any strong emotion. Lust, hate, firmly held religous or political views, even vigilante "justice" can all lead to illogical crimes that do not directly benefit the offender.
There is actualy one thing that I do think I missed out though, which also cannot be countered by simply removing capitalism and that is mental disorder. People who do view the world in a different way to everyone else can come into conflict about it. The guy who I went to school with who believed that some old lady on the train had a dragon on her lap that required knifing is a perfect example. Again, punishment doesnt solve anything here as these people have not conciously decieded to violate our code of morality and although they may be dangerous to us, it is not thier fault that thier minds do not function in a "normal" (careful use of the word there actualy) sense. Steps should be taken to help these people get over thier conditions so that not only do they pose no risk to the public, but also that they can live happy and productive lives.

[#FF0000]

I personaly place that (hate) in the 3rd catagory. (passion)
I would disagree. Hate, in the sense of racism, sexism, or homophobia, isn't a situational thing that just comes up in people when they get a bit too hot-headed. Hate is something that's conditioned into people by the environment they were raised in. If a person is brought up in a community that teaches values like internationalism, solidarity, and egalitarianism, it would stand to reason that "hate" would be less common as a motivation for crime.

So, yeah. I don't think you can lump hate crimes in with crimes of passion.

EDIT: Maybe I'm just looking at "crimes of passion" a bit differently than you are, though. I'm thinking now and I can sort of see why a hate crime could be considered a crime of passion.

[Bitter Ashes]

I just typed up a really long response, re-read your answer Rorschach and realised that I'd missed what you were saying and that actualy I agree, strictly in the sense that you are describing. It doesnt account for all kinds of hatred, which can frequently be a reaction to abuse, but I do see what you're saying now.

[Nils T.]

The guy who I went to school with who believed that some old lady on the train had a dragon on her lap that required knifing is a perfect example. Again, punishment doesnt solve anything here as these people have not conciously decieded to violate our code of morality and although they may be dangerous to us, it is not thier fault that thier minds do not function in a "normal" (careful use of the word there actualy) sense. Steps should be taken to help these people get over thier conditions so that not only do they pose no risk to the public, but also that they can live happy and productive lives.I think that our priority in such cases should be to get over our conditions so that differences in states of mind can exist among our society, without needing authoritarian systems of reeducation and exclusion. The normally functionning humans pose also a risk to the anormally functionning ones, and we can't reduce one threat while considering the other as legitimate.
Stupid beliefs, whether about old women with dragons or about irascible gods' promises, shouldn't be fought in the name of our authority, but of the general well-being.

[Pogue]

See how popular you get when you tell the workers we're gonna abolish private property.
Revolution is about progress and reason, not popularity, and anyway you can't create one by telling the workers what to do.

Abolishing private property can be reasoned. Abolishing prisons is just completelly irrational.

[Decolonize The Left]

Abolishing prisons is just completelly irrational.

What? Why?

- August

[Rjevan]

Well, Kijuna, what do you suggest?
If someone is really vicious, commits horrible crimes and doesn't show any signs of regret, I find it only natural to keep him away from the society and lock him up or send him to a "labour camp" where he at least does something good for the society.
Letting these people run free through the streets won't improve our society.

[revolution inaction]

Abolishing private property can be reasoned. Abolishing prisons is just completelly irrational.

It depends what you mean by prisons, if you mean some where that some people are keep separate from the rest of society, then it would be stupid to say we wont need them after the revolution. But a lot of the the anti prison people seem to be thinking of prisons as they are now, which we wouldn't want to keep.

[Nils T.]

I find it only natural to keep him away from the society and lock him up or send him to a "labour camp" where he at least does something good for the society.Natural or beneficial ?
I think that nature is a pretext, and I hardly see how exploitation of labour can help a society based on the revolt against it.

[#FF0000]

Abolishing private property can be reasoned. Abolishing prisons is just completelly irrational.

No. Being an anarchist and supporting the prison system as we know it is completely irrational. Did you read anything I said?

[Pogue]

It depends what you mean by prisons, if you mean some where that some people are keep separate from the rest of society, then it would be stupid to say we wont need them after the revolution. But a lot of the the anti prison people seem to be thinking of prisons as they are now, which we wouldn't want to keep.

I'm cool with any secure facility as long as it keeps them away from the sort of people they like too harm.

[Nils T.]

For how long ? Starting when ?

[Pogue]

Who knows how long? Can you really ever trust a serial rapist?

[Comrade B]

However if there does happen to be a crime committed I would support the use of labour camps. At least that way they would be giving something back to society. Obviously these labour camps wouldn't be harsh or cruel like Stalin's system.
I agree on this part, but I think that there will still be a moderate amount of crime from people trying to recreate a class system wanting to place themselves above others in the first generation under communism.

[Nils T.]

Who knows how long? Can you really ever trust a serial rapist?You mean that you are ready to deprive a human of his freedom (or of his life) without a defined time limit and without knowing from the start if there is any reason for it ?

And your example is badly picked. Rape is probably the crime for which prison is the least likely outcome (with war crimes) in the USA. People don't speak, cops don't believe, investigations are dropped.
Rape now is a risk, not a crime. We need to learn to live through the dangers at the corner of the street, and stop faking security with a few scarecrows burned. It only leads to incapacitate both the endangered and dangerous population, to prevent political and social action against the order of the guards, the judges and the saviors (the list is non-exhaustive, and if i didn't emphasize the patriarchal and sexist side of all this it's only because i didn't know how to formulate it - but camille paglia wrote about that, i think).

[Bitter Ashes]

And your example is badly picked. Rape is probably the crime for which prison is the least likely outcome (with war crimes) in the USA. People don't speak, cops don't believe, investigations are dropped.
To use your own example, I think this really shows how common this kind of crime is. If you're only hearing of a handful of cases then think for a moment about how many that happen that you do not hear of.
At the same time, it's certainly not uncommon for there to be genuine cases where the crime is framed on individuals. Further proof that a dedicated and highly trained investigation force is nessicary.
If the police are given the time to look for the truth in these cases they will get to the bottom of it and the criminals do need to be prevented from reoffending.

[Nils T.]

But the reason why people don't talk about it and why the police don't put its all in the investigations is the same one that explains the frequency of sexual crimes. In order to have a dedicated police force which can lead successful investigations on a majority of the cases, we would already need to change the status of these crimes in our society, and of the victims, and of the women and children, so that the shame and the humiliations, and the expectation of constant suffering incombent on the victim, disappear and leave the individuals free to talk and take action. That would suppose the destruction of the current system of justice which need scarecrows and total victims to justify itself, and of morals and norms that enclose sexual/interpersonal relations. In the end, it would also need the "endangered population" to take back its autonomy from the police and the justice, and in so doing to deprive any "dangerous population" from its moral support. "Impossible de violer cette femme pleine de vices", tout ca.


and the criminals do need to be prevented from reoffendingBut how ?

_______________________
"While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free"

[The Feral Underclass]

If you're going to create a revolution where you tell the workers we're gonna abolish prisons, see how popular you get.

Quite simply, when someone commits a barbaric crime, they have to bes eperated from society. There are two ways to do this - killing them, or locking them up. Nothing else will work.

It's bollocks to assume under communism, there will be no crime. Communism isn't a magical utopian wonderland, its an socia and economic system of relations and organisation. People will still be dickheads, there will be petty fights over who shagged whos girlfriend, etc. Yes, alot of problems will be eliminated, but it takes time, and certainly many will remain. And so we need prisons, unless we just shoot all the criminals, which obviously isn't (or I suppose some would say it is).

You've totally failed to grasp the point.

No one is saying that if people do things that create negative effects on society that they shouldn't be separated from it. No one is saying that in a communist society there won't be people who do bad things.

What is being argued is that retribution doesn't work and creating institutions for that purpose is not progressive.

[Lord Testicles]

Prisons: A social crime and failure. (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/prisons.html)

[Rjevan]

Natural or beneficial ?
I think that nature is a pretext, and I hardly see how exploitation of labour can help a society based on the revolt against it.
Natural and beneficial.
The difference between our revolt against exploitation and "exploitation" in labour camps is that we fight for the oppressed masses who didn't do anything wrong but still suffer under the system of ruthless capitalists who don't give a shit about the needs of the people and only care for their moneybag. A criminal being forced to work for the benefit of the society which he harmed, so to speak as compensation, is no injustice in my eyes. I don't want to recreate Gulags; and speaking of criminals who harmed society I don't refer to thieves who stole in a supermarket, or to tax dodgers who now "deserve to work themselves to death in Siberia".

But still, what is your suggestion? Though I don't share it, I respect your opinion that prisons don't work. But we haven't heard any suggestion how to improve things. What would you do with dangerous murderers?

[BlackCapital]

First of all, I think we can ALL agree that the current state of prisons (prison-industrial complex) is severely fucked up in that its imprisoning mainly minor drug offenders/petty thieves, focuses on retribution instead of rehabilitation, and is increasingly being privatized.

Most of us agree here that there is a need to separate the handful of people who commit extreme crimes like murder and rape. However, the elephant in the room is how exactly would this be done? I've read countless threads on police not existing whatsoever in a post-revolutionary society and although I could be wrong, it seems most people have agreed with that. So how does one go about fairly trying and physically moving Charles Manson Jr. into a rehabilitation center presumably against his will?

I can't think of any feasible way to do this besides with a legitimate peace-keeping force of some type which would inevitably have to be armed and wield authority. Of course this does not mean it has to function in the same way the police do today. I am aware this is sketchy territory, but I am at a loss of any other way to accomplish this. Thoughts?

[Bitter Ashes]

First of all, I think we can ALL agree that the current state of prisons (prison-industrial complex) is severely fucked up in that its imprisoning mainly minor drug offenders/petty thieves, focuses on retribution instead of rehabilitation, and is increasingly being privatized.

Most of us agree here that there is a need to separate the handful of people who commit extreme crimes like murder and rape. However, the elephant in the room is how exactly would this be done? I've read countless threads on police not existing whatsoever in a post-revolutionary society and although I could be wrong, it seems most people have agreed with that. So how does one go about fairly trying and physically moving Charles Manson Jr. into a rehabilitation center presumably against his will?

I can't think of any feasible way to do this besides with a legitimate peace-keeping force of some type which would inevitably have to be armed and wield authority. Of course this does not mean it has to function in the same way the police do today. I am aware this is sketchy territory, but I am at a loss of any other way to accomplish this. Thoughts?
My thoughts? That is the nail hit squarely on the head there on all points.:)

[Comrade B]

I would suggest supressing the motives he has for shoving guns into people's mouthes. Or restricting his access to guns. Maybe tickling him until proper socialization, or sending him away. Or sending you and your friend away.
His motive was that she knocked on his door. I will agree with you on restricting his access to guns, but still, this man is very mentally unstable, still don't want him near anyone I know, and why should my friend move away from him? She did nothing wrong. Another example of a friendly fellow from my town:
We call him Talkative Tim. He begins long lengthy conversations with you where he brings up creepy subjects. He gives no opportunity for you to leave the conversation, and if you try to leave it, there is a decent chance he will stab you, as he is prone to doing.
He is likely to be off to prison again soon, and I hope jolly well he is.

[Nils T.]

Rjevan, why did you quote exploitation ? You don't think that forcing people to work for our benefit is real exploitation ?

Again, nature don't make social rules, we do. Justice is an human idea. And we can abandon it. That's what I want, anyway. Of course what you propose is no injustice, but neither is the gulag.
I think that social institutions are not hermetically separated. And that we can't create a society where needs and desires comes before merits, if we try to impose order by a system of retribution.


What would you do with dangerous murderers? Depends. After the start of the revolution, i will probably become quickly a dangerous murderer myself, as I don't think that human life is sacred nor that revolution can be achieved only with peaceful means. And i'll tolerate my existence and my freedom. So i think i'll tolerate the existence and freedom of most of the others, even the ones more dangerous than me. Life will anyway be far more secure in a communist society with a few murderers on the loose than in a capitalist society with a few murderers on the loose and others in prison. Absolute security is a fantasy for a bourgeois mind; personally I don't see why or how we would attain such a goal. Humans die anyway, and that's tragic alright. How they die is indifferent to me.
If we have to use ressources because we fear death, we better use them for medical progress (personally, i'm convinced that eternal youth is only some decades ahead) than for constituting peaceful and totalitarian enclaves in our free community. One thing i'm sure of : i don't want to become a cop or a prison guard.


His motive was that she knocked on his door. I will agree with you on restricting his access to guns, but still, this man is very mentally unstable, still don't want him near anyone I know, and why should my friend move away from him? She did nothing wrong.He feared something else than the knocks on his door. Yet he does seems particularily unstable. So enclosing him under permanent surveillance with other unstable people will not only isolate the problem, it will also make it worse. You and your friend will forget, but the other detainees and/or him will suffer more. Why do you care only for the people you know ? And what if you knew someone "unstable" ? i
I don't think the guards will go to work with smiles on their faces either. We could totally isolate him, but that solution is not less cruel. We could shove a gun in his mouth and kill him...
And why would your friend stay near him if she doesn't want to ? It's not about who did something wrong.

No, i don't think that putting a guard, talkative tim and the oral-stage-frustrated neighbour together and waiting to see who gets to beat the others is an interesting solution.

[Rjevan]

Rjevan, why did you quote exploitation ? You don't think that forcing people to work for our benefit is real exploitation ?
Forcing ordinary people to work for our benefits would be exploitation but forcing murderers and other dangerous criminals to make good the damage they caused to society by letting them work for the benefits of society is not the same thing.


Justice is an human idea. And we can abandon it.
You're absolutely right and the current system of justice needs to be abandoned but abandon justice totally? Some crimes, like murder, are definitely evil (though evil is a human concept, too, but nobody but psychopates will say that killing innocent people just for fun is right and good) and represent a threat to our society.


Depends. After the start of the revolution, i will probably become quickly a dangerous murderer myself, as I don't think that human life is sacred nor that revolution can be achieved only with peaceful means. And i'll tolerate my existence and my freedom. So i think i'll tolerate the existence and freedom of most of the others, even the ones more dangerous than me. Life will anyway be far more secure in a communist society with a few murderers on the loose than in a capitalist society with a few murderers on the loose and others in prison. Absolute security is a fantasy for a bourgeois mind; personally I don't see why or how we would attain such a goal. Humans die anyway, and that's tragic alright. How they die is indifferent to me.

Yes, you're right, maybe I'm not a saint, too, and yes, people die anyway but for me personally it matters if my children die at the age of 82 peacefully at home or if they are raped and murdered by a lunatic at the age of 14.
And somehow we must encounter this threat! I really dislike the idea of Charles Manson and Ed Gain running free through our streets and killing whoever they like to. I don't want people to be fair game for some vicious psychos. I know that we'll never have total security but don't even trying to imprison these peoples will make everything even worse.

[Nils T.]

forcing murderers and other dangerous criminals to make good the damage they caused to society by letting them work for the benefits of society is not the same thing.That's different ideas of justice, but served by the same exploitation. Frankly, i don't think that the unvoluntary work of some serial rapists/killers will even compensate the social loss represented by the unproductive work of the guards and other penitenciary employees. So, i'm sceptic about the overall benefits for society.

nobody but psychopates will say that killing innocent people just for fun is right and goodYet some said that it is not right nor wrong, and others said it was poetic. And killing for fun is at least fun...
Murder is a threat to society (more precisely, to what is good in the said society and in the amoral meaning of the term) if it is compelled, like most murders in capitalist societies - by gangs, police, mafias, armies... But one could shoot a man just to watch him die in some city lost in nevada, and it would not pose a threat to society.


die at the age of 82 peacefully at homeDeaths of this type are rarely so peaceful. Years of diseases and the slow loss of one's autonomy... even if you avoid cancer or others particularily painful diseases, that's not really the best way to die.

don't even trying to imprison these peoples will make everything even worse.Worse compared with what ?

[political_animal]

After the start of the revolution, i will probably become quickly a dangerous murderer myself, as I don't think that human life is sacred nor that revolution can be achieved only with peaceful means. And i'll tolerate my existence and my freedom. So i think i'll tolerate the existence and freedom of most of the others, even the ones more dangerous than me. Life will anyway be far more secure in a communist society with a few murderers on the loose than in a capitalist society with a few murderers on the loose and others in prison. Absolute security is a fantasy for a bourgeois mind; personally I don't see why or how we would attain such a goal. Humans die anyway, and that's tragic alright. How they die is indifferent to me

What absolute bollocks!!! Why wait for the revolution mate. Start murdering now, take out a few capitalists, police, prison guards...

You don't think that human life is sacred? So putting aside the religious connotations of that, you don't give a shit about anyone?

"Humans die anyway, how they die is indifferent to me"! Jeez, whatever happens, I hope I'm not in YOUR revolution.

[brigadista]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh8ZrGhzJIM

[brigadista]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q25-KJ55k_0&feature=related

this too

[Nils T.]

What absolute bollocks!!! Why wait for the revolution mate. Start murdering now, take out a few capitalists, police, prison guards...Individual terrorism is too dangerous and not really useful.
And I do put aside the religious ideas, and I don't think that human life has any intrinsic value. But I try to be logic : the more the merrier, i definitely prefer the society of the living. That's also one reason why i'm not happy with the exclusion of criminals and mad people.


"Humans die anyway, how they die is indifferent to me"! Jeez, whatever happens, I hope I'm not in YOUR revolution. Careful what you wish for. My revolution is bigger than yours !
Hm. Now tell me why.

[Rjevan]

But one could shoot a man just to watch him die in some city lost in nevada, and it would not pose a threat to society.
It would! Because the shot man was part of the society and who guarantees that the murder won't go on like this? Maybe some day shooting people is not enough anymore? The he'll go on torturing them first, just to see how they react. And so he kills on and on and therefore is a threat to society!
But even if he killed only one man: this is no excuse. He took away a life without any reason (besides of wnting fun, you can have fun many other, less evil ways) it isn't that he had to kill the man because he was close to death of hunger and he had to eat this man before he would have done the same to him. Animals kill other animals because they need food. I never hared of an animal that kills just for fun.


Deaths of this type are rarely so peaceful. Years of diseases and the slow loss of one's autonomy... even if you avoid cancer or others particularily painful diseases, that's not really the best way to die.
You don't want to tell me that you'd prefer dying because a lunatic slit your throat at the age of 14 instead of dying of a heart attack at he age of 82, do you?


Worse compared with what ?
With the current system which is worse enough.

[Nils T.]

I never hared of an animal that kills just for fun. Cats and humans do that.

The human societies are usually tolerating death to a great extent. One man can die in reno for the pleasure of another - 150000 die the same day around the world, and most of them die without pleasuring anyone. If one of them survive another day, his society won't change.
I hope that one day we'll collectively acknowledge that we are already tolerating death. In fact, we do worse : we accept death. Then there are some particular cases, for some groups of people, like all "unnecessary" murders for you, when death becomes unacceptable. These unnacceptable cases vary. Stalin had a saying about that.
I want this to end. I won't simply accept any death, and I won't make any circonstancial exception to my tolerance for it. Viewing it totally as a risk to take, not as doom or as a capital offense, is the way to preserve for one part the necessary revolt against it, and all consecutive revolts against sacrifice; and to avoid the dangerous and illusory search for security.
I propose to let murderers relatively free, but I don't want anyone to stay passive and wait for the cleaver. Most murderers, and probably all torturers, are able to communicate with others : we can talk (or tickle or fuck or anything) our way out of this. We can keep watch, we can adapt our communities, we can find and suppress the causes, we can offer finer and more acute pleasures... And eventually, i don't think that a murderer life is more sacred that the others. As long as we don't rebuild an authoritarian structure.


He took away a life without any reason (besides of wnting fun, you can have fun many other, less evil ways) it isn't that he had to kill the man because he was close to death of hunger and he had to eat this man before he would have done the same to him.Desires and sensations are far more important than needs. That's what makes us cats and atheist humans, not only autoreproductive systems.

You don't want to tell me that you'd prefer dying because a lunatic slit your throat at the age of 14 instead of dying of a heart attack at he age of 82, do you?I don't want to seem though or anything, but that's exactly what I want to tell you.

[Nils T.]

Worse compared with what ? With the current system which is worse enough.I'll try to translate a dialog from Caligula to answer that.



SCIPIO

Till then, many men die around you.


CALIGULA

So few, Scipio, truly. Do you know how many wars I refused ?


SCIPIO

No.


CALIGULA

Three. And do you know why I refused them ?


SCIPIO

Because you disregard the grandeur of Roma.


CALIGULA

No, because I respect human life.


SCIPIO

You're mocking me, Caius.


CALIGULA

Or at least, I respect it more than I respect an ideal of conquests. Yet it is true that I don't respect it more than I respect my own life. And if it is easy for me to kill, it's that dying is not difficult for me. No, the more I think about it, the more i'm convinced that I am not a tyrant.


SCIPIO
What does it matter if it costs us as much as if you were one ?


CALIGULA

If you could count, you'd know that the smallest war launched by a sensible tyrant would cost you a thousand times more than the whims of my fantasy.


SCIPIO
But at least, it would be reasonable and the important part is to understand.


CALIGULA

We don't understand fate and that's why I decided to become fate. I took for myself the stupid and incomprehensible face of the gods. That's what your companions learnt to adore.


SCIPIO
And that's the blasphemy, Caius.


CALIGULA

No, Scipio, that is drama ! All these men's error, it is not to believe enough in theatre. Otherwise they would know that any man is permitted to play the celestial tragedies and become god.

[Vahanian]

Nobody even really thinks they work, so what the hell gives?

They've kept jails open because they like having violent criminals behind bars and having the business criminals run the government.

[Glorious Union]

Prisons are a total failure in punishment, criminals are not learnig any kind of lesson there. Did you know that they have cable TV, magazine subscriptions, and regular food in those prisons? They get luxuries of life that most lower class people don't have, and for free too! Those with life sentences get a free ride for the rest of their lives, never having to contribute to society ever! Instead, other people work and pay regular taxes to keep those men fed and properly entertained in their little holding cells.

No work, and a free ride on other people's work? Does that remind anybody of the elite class, even a little bit?

[#FF0000]

His motive was that she knocked on his door. I will agree with you on restricting his access to guns, but still, this man is very mentally unstable, still don't want him near anyone I know, and why should my friend move away from him? She did nothing wrong. Another example of a friendly fellow from my town:
We call him Talkative Tim. He begins long lengthy conversations with you where he brings up creepy subjects. He gives no opportunity for you to leave the conversation, and if you try to leave it, there is a decent chance he will stab you, as he is prone to doing.
He is likely to be off to prison again soon, and I hope jolly well he is.

And then he'll be out again, having paid his debt to society, and having grown 100 times worse in his mental condition. For the mentally ill, prisons certainly do not work. You have to hospitalize them and (the operative bit here) treat them for their problem. With things as they are now, throwing a schizophrenic in prison for an assault charge might make you happy, but it would be naive to say that it wouldn't exacerbate that person's problem, and overall, cause a bigger problem for society.

[#FF0000]

Prisons are a total failure in punishment, criminals are not learnig any kind of lesson there. Did you know that they have cable TV, magazine subscriptions, and regular food in those prisons? They get luxuries of life that most lower class people don't have, and for free too! Those with life sentences get a free ride for the rest of their lives, never having to contribute to society ever! Instead, other people work and pay regular taxes to keep those men fed and properly entertained in their little holding cells.

No work, and a free ride on other people's work? Does that remind anybody of the elite class, even a little bit?

Oh, I would love to live in a prison, where I would live a life of privilege and comfort in a most harmonious environment.

Please.

TV and magazine subscriptions aren't the reasons for criminals not being rehabilitated. The actual factors in this are much more obvious and sensible.

1) Punishment doesn't work nearly as well as reward does. - Simply put, reinforcement and reward are better suited for molding behavior. Ask any psychologist that deals with learning and behavior. Hell, ask any elementary school teacher or dog trainer.

2) Prisons don't rehabilitate - Some people tell you that prisons are there to rehabilitate and correct behavior. Bullshit. Prisons seem more geared for just keeping societies problems locked up and hidden away. The way they handle "corrections" simply doesn't work. Anti-social tendencies are pretty deep-set, and one needs to be committed to rehabilitating someone if you hope to succeed in making any lasting change.

3)Even if a criminal is successfully rehabilitated, they're put right back into their old environment - Ever read A Clockwork Orange? Well, let give you a summary. A teenage murderer/rapist and all around hooligan is locked up and rehabilitated with experimental methods. It works! Then he's let back to his old neighborhood. Upon his return, he gets his shit wrecked on a constant basis by his former criminal buddies. Then he becomes a murderer-rapist again. That's how it plays out in real life too, boyo.

Why's that? Hold on man, I'm about to blow people's minds with this. Ready? Here goes. The conditions that people live in affect their consciousness! That means that no matter what a prison does, and whether or not it works, is irrelevant! If someone is surrounded with bad behavior and is in a bad environment, they'll be more likely to behave badly themselves. Woah. I hope you were sitting down when you read that. Go get a glass of club soda and a some crackers. It might help with the nausea you're experiencing upon having this epiphany. I don't know about you but the room is spinning for me. Jesus.

These are just three of a myriad of reasons for why criminals are a problem after prison, all of which make a lot more sense than your ridiculous "THEY GET TO READ" hypothesis.

And honestly, you're complaining about using tax dollars to keep prisoners in jail? You don't seem to want them out of jail, so what are you complaining about?

[Kernewek]

Prisons are a total failure in punishment, criminals are not learnig any kind of lesson there. Did you know that they have cable TV, magazine subscriptions, and regular food in those prisons? They get luxuries of life that most lower class people don't have, and for free too! Those with life sentences get a free ride for the rest of their lives, never having to contribute to society ever! Instead, other people work and pay regular taxes to keep those men fed and properly entertained in their little holding cells.

No work, and a free ride on other people's work? Does that remind anybody of the elite class, even a little bit?

omg they have tv, magazines and food in prison? I wanna go to prison, sounds like a right party

I mean you loose your freedom, have do hours of labour in sweatshop conditions, recive substandard medical treatment and there's the constent threat of violence and rape, but it's a small price to pay to eat food and watch tv

[brigadista]

Prisons are a total failure in punishment, criminals are not learnig any kind of lesson there. Did you know that they have cable TV, magazine subscriptions, and regular food in those prisons? They get luxuries of life that most lower class people don't have, and for free too! Those with life sentences get a free ride for the rest of their lives, never having to contribute to society ever! Instead, other people work and pay regular taxes to keep those men fed and properly entertained in their little holding cells.



No work, and a free ride on other people's work? Does that remind anybody of the elite class, even a little bit?


have you ever been in a prison? you are believing the tabloid myths here

[brigadista]

have you ever been in a prison? you are believing the tabloid myths here

i suggest you look and the 2 posts i made earlier from angela davis where she describes some of the US prison regimes..and the political reasons behind imprisonment , why it does not work and how the penal system is used to uphold capitalism and provide propaganda to support the hegemony,

quantanamo bay is not an exceptional type of prison - many of those practices go on in US jails.. some of the guards at abu ghraib were former penitentiary guards in the us..

look at the solitary confinement conditions of impisonment in us jails and

coming to the UK in fact partly here private jails run for profit - these are serious issues for socialists

[StalinFanboy]

There is a wonderful pamphlet on the American prison-industrial complex called "World Behind Bars: the Expansion of the Amerikan Prison Cell" put out by Signalfire Press.

[Rjevan]

If one of them survive another day, his society won't change.
Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know what some of them would have done if they had lived a few years more or maybe just one day more. Maybe they would have done something to change things, they maybe would have invented new medicines, wrote an article that caused a new point of view or maybe they would have just helped one person through giving him money or something. You don't know what somebody would have done if he had lived longer. Imagine Marx would have died before meeting Engels or before finishing the manifesto. I doubt that writing his ideas down or not would have made no difference.


I propose to let murderers relatively free, but I don't want anyone to stay passive and wait for the cleaver. Most murderers, and probably all torturers, are able to communicate with others : we can talk (or tickle or fuck or anything) our way out of this. We can keep watch, we can adapt our communities, we can find and suppress the causes, we can offer finer and more acute pleasures... And eventually, i don't think that a murderer life is more sacred that the others. As long as we don't rebuild an authoritarian structure.
Well, I see your point and maybe you're right. Perhapes it's just my personal embittered view but I think that talking to these people won't help and I think that you aren't able to cure most of them. Sure, I wrong the few which could have been healed by just imprisoning these people without trying to help them but I think that's better than realising that one can't be healed after he killed for the 5th time after getting out of prison/therapy. But as I said, maybe it's just my personal pessimistic view...


I don't want to seem though or anything, but that's exactly what I want to tell you.
Though I absolutely can't agree with you I find this fascinating. This is no personal offense but this is a strange way of thinking. :blink:

[brigadista]

"Jails and prisons are designed to break human beings, to convert the population into specimens in a zoo - obedient to our keepers, but dangerous to each other"

[Nils T.]

I don't want to seem tough or anything, but that's exactly what I want to tell you. Though I absolutely can't agree with you I find this fascinating. This is no personal offense but this is a strange way of thinking.The correct word was tough...
Well, when someone tells me that i'm fascinating, whatever his intention I'm inclined to take it as a flattery more than as an offense. I'm just surprised that you find it strange, the fear of old age is not rare.
I find stranger the idea that one life could change anything for millions of others. Even if it is a reality, i'm somewhat stuck with the opposite idea that individuals don't count, only masses make history. But what could have happened if Adolphe Thiers had been killed on 19 march 1871 ? or Gustav Noske in 1918 ? or Joseph Djougachvili in 1919 ? Or Franco in 1936 ? Maybe that would have changed history.
But these men were not killed, and neither was Marx. The probability that one die at the best moment for the survivors is insignificant. People like John Wilkes Booth or Ramon Mercader tried to change something, but in the end that was not much. Assassinations changed little, and simple murders nothing as far as I know.


talking to these people won't help and I think that you aren't able to cure most of them.No... With the exception of deaf and autistic people, talking always help. But talking to someone in prison or under sedatives have far less effect than talking to a dangerous equal. That's why i would agree with you that putting people in prison and try to talk to them if that failed to redeem them is the wrong approach. And that's why declaring that killing is a disease to cure is also an error.
And like I said, talking is not the only way.

[Glorious Union]

have you ever been in a prison? you are believing the tabloid myths here
No, I know a person who has been to prison. They have to chare a cell with one other person, stay in that cell from morning untill noon, eat and exercise, then go back to the cell to watch TV and read untill bedtime. Same thing each day, no work or torture at all. Judging by the other responses to my remark it must just be Texan prisons that are like this.:confused:

[#FF0000]

No, I know a person who has been to prison. They have to chare a cell with one other person, stay in that cell from morning untill noon, eat and exercise, then go back to the cell to watch TV and read untill bedtime. Same thing each day, no work or torture at all. Judging by the other responses to my remark it must just be Texan prisons that are like this.:confused:

So what do you propose to make prisons more efficient?

[Glorious Union]

So what do you propose to make prisons more efficient?
Well, I was just posting here to illustrate their failure as a punishment system.

But if you want my honest opinion on that, I would like to see some kind of re-education center where criminals would learn what they did wrong, why it is wrong, and how to go about working with us rather than against us. Meh, just a thought.

[#FF0000]

Well, I was just posting here to illustrate their failure as a punishment system.

But if you want my honest opinion on that, I would like to see some kind of re-education center where criminals would learn what they did wrong, why it is wrong, and how to go about working with us rather than against us. Meh, just a thought.

Ohhhh I see. So you don't propose making them some inhumane torture centers then. Good.

[Rjevan]

The correct word was tough...
No, I meant although. ;)


I'm just surprised that you find it strange, the fear of old age is not rare.
That's true but most people (at least most people I spoke to) are afraid of old age because not because of the diseases but because they know that they won't live very long anymore. Some are also afraid of the idea to end their life alone in a nursing home but I can assure you that these people (I know) would beg for their lives if one would try to murder them and that they would cling themselves to every single day. This means they are terribly afraid of death itself and I would be really surprised if they would have prefered to be killed years ago.
So the way you are thinking is, as I said, something I don't agree with but it's interesting.


I find stranger the idea that one life could change anything for millions of others. Even if it is a reality, i'm somewhat stuck with the opposite idea that individuals don't count, only masses make history.
Yes, but the masses were always influenced by single people. Nearly all the events that took place in history were always triggered by individuals, no matter if they wanted it like Robbespiere or if they didn't even intend it like Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette. Without the actions of these three people the French Revolution maybe would have never took place or at least would have been very different.
Another example: I doubt that the nazis would have been that successful without Hitler. If he had died in WW I I'm pretty sure that the party would have ended up as a stange curiosity. Sure they had other talented demagogues like Goebbels but I don't think that they would have been able to win such great support as Hitler did.


No... With the exception of deaf and autistic people, talking always help. But talking to someone in prison or under sedatives have far less effect than talking to a dangerous equal. That's why i would agree with you that putting people in prison and try to talk to them if that failed to redeem them is the wrong approach. And that's why declaring that killing is a disease to cure is also an error.
And like I said, talking is not the only way.
I'm not sure if I got you right there but I think you are saying that if speaking to them doesn't help it would be the best to kill them. Ok so far.
But I think that confronting them as equal and trying to talk to them is a very dangerous game. I agree that talking to a lunatic who's under sedativa and in a strait jacket won't help anything. Whilst confronting them as equal individuals and try to talk to them may have immense influence on them and then there's a good chance of helping them. But the problem is may...
What if they just kill you and then go on with their murderings? Is it responsible to take the risk of letting them kill on and on if your talk doesn't work?
I'd rather imprison them so I can be sure that they won't harm anyone anymore.

[Nils T.]

No, I meant although.I meant that I meant tough when I wrote that I didn't mean that to seem "though", not that you meant tough when you wrote though.


I think you are saying that if speaking to them doesn't help it would be the best to kill them.No. If talking only doesn't work, we can offer other things than communication - another life, other people to relate with, another game, other fantasies, sex, even private possessions to toy with. I'm not opposed to murder as a solution, but we have to make it clear that first it is not justice, it's the act of another murderer, and secondly that it is not as fun as a positive solution would be. It's a very dangerous game, but we never chose communism for the comfort.

But this very dangerous game is less dangerous than our current survival game in capitalist environments. Serial killers are already relatively rare and would be far fewer still in a society built with a view to eliminate frustration. It is irresponsible by definition to let people free, but I think it's better to take that risk than to build another rule by authority.

[Rjevan]

I meant that I meant tough when I wrote that I didn't mean that to seem "though", not that you meant tough when you wrote though.
Ah, okay, now I understand ... I guess. ;):D


No. If talking only doesn't work, we can offer other things than communication - another life, other people to relate with, another game, other fantasies, sex, even private possessions to toy with.
So you're suggesting a "Disneyland for lunatics"? I like this idea! As long as they harm nobody but have the opportunity to keep themselves busy with other things than killing it's a good idea.
Nevertheless I'm more the "revenge-guy", I don't see why we should enable a happy life to these people, after they distroyed the lives of others, as I said before I'm more in favour of letting them carry out compensation, but you're idea is good.


It's a very dangerous game, but we never chose communism for the comfort.
This point goes to you. ;)


But this very dangerous game is less dangerous than our current survival game in capitalist environments. Serial killers are already relatively rare and would be far fewer still in a society built with a view to eliminate frustration. It is irresponsible by definition to let people free, but I think it's better to take that risk than to build another rule by authority.
Hm, it's a question of the lesser evil. I too think that crime rates will decrease in a communist society because many crimes happen only because of envy on somebody's money or possessions or because of hate on society but really mad murderers don't need a reason to kill and they will still be there in a communist society. I really wouldn't want an authoritarian dictatorship like in "1984" to live in the illusion that I'm totally save but I wouldn't want to be a victim of your game because it didn't work as well. So I need something in between these two options.

Btw: I enjoyed this discussion. I don't share some of your views but nevertheless, you're good. Keep it up! :cool:

[Nils T.]

Nevertheless I'm more the "revenge-guy", I don't see why we should enable a happy life to these people, after they distroyed the lives of others, as I said before I'm more in favour of letting them carry out compensation, but you're idea is good.Well, if you want revenge against murderers, you can take it, and we'll get you a disneyland so you forget about it...

[Nils T.]

I don't see why we should enable a happy life to these people, after they distroyed the lives of others, as I said before I'm more in favour of letting them carry out compensation
And this principle would send us all in prison. A happy life for murderers, that's the core of the revolution.

[destroyimperialism]

prisons should only exist as a place where fascists can be left to rot

[Nils T.]

Waste not. Fridges are better than prisons for them.

[Comrade B]

And then he'll be out again, having paid his debt to society, and having grown 100 times worse in his mental condition. For the mentally ill, prisons certainly do not work. You have to hospitalize them and (the operative bit here) treat them for their problem. With things as they are now, throwing a schizophrenic in prison for an assault charge might make you happy, but it would be naive to say that it wouldn't exacerbate that person's problem, and overall, cause a bigger problem for society.
I agree with you. The guy is crazy, prison as punishment will just make him more violent. He needs treatment, not punishment. I also support re-education camps for greed-driven crimes and violent counter-revolutionaries much like the camps England had for WWII POWs (excluding the slavery bit), they worked quite well for my Opa.

[Orange Juche]

I think poverty=crime because people are desperate to have their basic needs met.

What if someone is simply batshit insane, and hurt and murder and steal because Nazis in UFOs supposedly told them to?

[Nils T.]

What if someone is simply batshit insane, and hurt and murder and steal because Nazis in UFOs supposedly told them to? Then we'll teach him to revolt against the exploitation of his unindentified flying nazi masters.