Imprisonment: a bad thing

[Anti-Fascist]

How do you justify such a form of punishment?

The criminal may have done wrong, but he is still a person. We
must put him back on his feet, not imprison him.

No one deserves to be put in a gaol. It is inhumane.

[Invader Zim]

Imprisonment is in general an ineffective way of dealing with criminals. Here in the UK, sent a person to prison for drug abuse and they leave a dealer. If I were running the country I would make some changes to the system. Community service programs would be introdused for minor offences such as theft, drug dealing, etc. But for more dangerous criminals such as rapists etc then it is safer to remove them from the public domain. However prisons would be very different. They would not be a place of bars and fear. But like another home, where they can do their community service and recieve counciling and treatment (if neaded) to try and rehabilitate. Punishment should not be the objective of criminal justice but rehabilitation.

I believe (but not swear to it) that some scandinavian countries have similar methods of rehabilitation, and we all know that these countries are significantly better than other western countries, in terms of crime, and reoffence.

Murderer's however are interesting, I remember hearing a quote somewhere along the lines of "most murderes are crimes of necessity, rather than passion". If that is the case, then unless the criminal is given serious motivation to kill again they are unlikley too, so perhaps in some cases, imprisonment is not an ideal punishment for murder.

well thats my view.

PS the death sentance is an abomination, any person who seriously considers the use of it is no better than the murderer they would condem. It is interesting, but if a person framed another on a murder charge, (in Britain in the late 1800's) then that person (if caught) would also face a murder charge.

[flayer2]

Last I checked ... The Danish prison system had the lowest rate of return offenders - It kinda proves the point that rehabilitation is better than punishment..

[Desert Fox]

Punishment is good for some criminals, for minor offences you shouldn&#39;t put them in a prison. Like drug addicts should be sent to rehab centres and not to prisons. But I don&#39;t see how a serial-killer should be sent back into society <_<

[Saint-Just]

We punish people to deter others from committing crimes. Punishing such people demonstrates our intolerance towards anti-social and criminal behaviour. No one is above punishment, punishment is not absolutely inhumane. Punishment that is out of proportion to the crime committed is inhumane. Imprisoning people for many years seems brutal, however small punishments do not. For example when we say a child cannot have an ice cream because they have behaved badly. It seems reasonable, a small punishment for a small misdemeanour.

Imprisonment is a punishment like any other. It is more severe than some punishments and less severe than some punishments. Equally it is a greater deterrent than some punishments and so on. My point is that imprisonment is entirely reasonable for certain crimes that society decides are deserving of that punishment. In addition, it is necessary to create a safe and functional society. There are of course other ways to make society safe, however imprisonment is a necessary one of many ways to do this.

Some people can be rehabilitated. Punishment is an important part of that rehabilition. It makes criminals aware that what they have done is wrong. If they accept what they have done is wrong they can be rehabilitated. And, as I said it works as a deterrent.


The Danish prison system had the lowest rate of return offenders - It kinda proves the point that rehabilitation is better than punishment..

I think this is an issue that is affected greatly by the nature of Danish society. Traditionally these Scandinavian countries have had a strong sense of community because of the fact that the countries were originally very difficult to survive in. Thus people relied heavily on those around them to survive and were less likely to commit crime - similar to socialist society.

[Iepilei]

I don&#39;t believe in just warehousing people, but I don&#39;t believe that potential murders should be allowed to run freely amongst those who are trying to live about normal lives. There is a difference between tough and inhumane, and I strongly believe that SERIOUS offenders should be kept at distance from people for the protection of society and should be given opportunity to prove themselves capable of existing peacably amongst their fellow man.

I don&#39;t believe in prison violence. To allow the "animals to punish themselves" or any other notion you may see on HBO programs. But I do believe that prisons don&#39;t have to be cushy pads for people to live.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

I think punishment is as important as rehabilitation. The punishment is there to discourage those that have the potential to crimes.
I would like to see alot more community service take place as well though, but jail is definatley a necessary option to have.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Imprisonment is neccesary.

Rehabilitation will work only to a limited extent; Serial Killers and Rapists must be kept off the streets. A balance must be maintained between the rights of offenders and the safety of the general public.

Community service is a fantastic idea.

It encourages criminals to put something back into the community they have damaged, and should be increased across the country.

Capital punishment is foul and depraved; no modern society should condone it. As "Enigma" said,



... the death sentance is an abomination, any person who seriously considers the use of it is no better than the murderer they would condemn.


This is true for all capital punishment; the cutting off of a limb for example.

I remember hearing the same quote by the way. ("Most murders are crimes of necessity, rather than passion.") I heard it in "Con Air", a Nicholas Cage film; it was quoted by a serial killer&#33;&#33; It probably originated elsewhere, but I don&#39;t have any ideas...

[redstar2000]

I am in favor of execution for serious crimes of violence.

I favor this option for three reasons.

Long prison terms are inherently dehumanizing...you&#39;ve actually taken someone&#39;s life by centimeters, and painful ones at that. Insofar as popular opinion is unlikely to "tolerate" decent conditions in prisons, they will inevitably become hell-holes of suffering. Execution is more humane.

Long prison terms are resource-intensive. You have to build the prisons, maintain them, staff them with guards, feed and clothe the prisoners, etc. It may well be cheaper to send someone to Harvard or Oxbridge than to keep them in prison over the same period of time. It is far cheaper to execute a violent sociopath than it is to warehouse him for fifty years or more.

The consequence of a prison system is that society develops a "prison culture". Prison guards are the same in every country...brutal fascist thugs who will support brutal fascist thuggish politics.

This would be an ideological disaster for communist society.

I&#39;m in favor of short jail sentences for minor crimes...no more than three years at the most. In my view, jails should have the "look and feel" of ordinary apartment buildings except that you cannot leave. Inmates would be treated with dignity and encouraged to rehabilitate themselves.

I am leery of "community service" schemes; it seems to me that they would have the potential of gathering a lot of cheap labor to do shitty jobs that no one else wants to do. In such a situation, there would be considerable incentive to create artificial "crimes" to increase the labor pool...that would be a bad thing, in my view. It would be a "mild" version of slave labor.

Since prison "reform" under capitalism is just as fundamentally meaningless as any other kind of "reform", my suggestions are made in the context of communist society.

Under capitalism, no matter what they do, it will be horrible.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[suffianr]

How do you justify such a form of punishment?

The problem with judicial systems is that they don&#39;t have to justify anything to you.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 03:23 AM
I am in favor of execution for serious crimes of violence.

I favor this option for three reasons.

Long prison terms are inherently dehumanizing...you&#39;ve actually taken someone&#39;s life by centimeters, and painful ones at that. Insofar as popular opinion is unlikely to "tolerate" decent conditions in prisons, they will inevitably become hell-holes of suffering. Execution is more humane.

Long prison terms are resource-intensive. You have to build the prisons, maintain them, staff them with guards, feed and clothe the prisoners, etc. It may well be cheaper to send someone to Harvard or Oxbridge than to keep them in prison over the same period of time. It is far cheaper to execute a violent sociopath than it is to warehouse him for fifty years or more.

The consequence of a prison system is that society develops a "prison culture". Prison guards are the same in every country...brutal fascist thugs who will support brutal fascist thuggish politics.

This would be an ideological disaster for communist society.

I&#39;m in favor of short jail sentences for minor crimes...no more than three years at the most. In my view, jails should have the "look and feel" of ordinary apartment buildings except that you cannot leave. Inmates would be treated with dignity and encouraged to rehabilitate themselves.

I am leery of "community service" schemes; it seems to me that they would have the potential of gathering a lot of cheap labor to do shitty jobs that no one else wants to do. In such a situation, there would be considerable incentive to create artificial "crimes" to increase the labor pool...that would be a bad thing, in my view. It would be a "mild" version of slave labor.

Since prison "reform" under capitalism is just as fundamentally meaningless as any other kind of "reform", my suggestions are made in the context of communist society.

Under capitalism, no matter what they do, it will be horrible.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
I am in favor of execution for serious crimes of violence.

and for relativly minor crimes, as we have established....

Long prison terms are inherently dehumanizing...

True.

...you&#39;ve actually taken someone&#39;s life by centimeters, and painful ones at that.

True.

Insofar as popular opinion is unlikely to "tolerate" decent conditions in prisons, they will inevitably become hell-holes of suffering

True.

Execution is more humane.

False, go up to a prisoner and ask them which they would consider more humane death or prison, I guarantee they will choose the later. It also defeats the entire object of rehablilitation... and it doesnt work, because people still commit crimes.

Long prison terms are resource-intensive. You have to build the prisons, maintain them, staff them with guards, feed and clothe the prisoners, etc. It may well be cheaper to send someone to Harvard or Oxbridge than to keep them in prison over the same period of time.

True

It is far cheaper to execute a violent sociopath than it is to warehouse him for fifty years or more.

Yes but what if there has been a miscarrage of Justice?

I&#39;m in favor of short jail sentences for minor crimes...no more than three years at the most. In my view, jails should have the "look and feel" of ordinary apartment buildings except that you cannot leave. Inmates would be treated with dignity and encouraged to rehabilitate themselves.

That is a good policy, I would however extend it to all violant crimes.

I am leery of "community service" schemes; it seems to me that they would have the potential of gathering a lot of cheap labor to do shitty jobs that no one else wants to do. In such a situation, there would be considerable incentive to create artificial "crimes" to increase the labor pool...that would be a bad thing, in my view. It would be a "mild" version of slave labor.

Thje community service scheams in place in Britain are hardly slave labour, I would suggest a similar system for all minor crime.

Under capitalism, no matter what they do, it will be horrible.

yeah, i&#39;m sure ending slavery was horrible... ;)

[Hampton]

It is far cheaper to execute a violent sociopath than it is to warehouse him for fifty years or more.

This is false:


The actual cost of an execution is substantially higher than the cost of imprisoning a person for life. A 1982 in- depth study of death penalty costs in New York placed the cost of executing a prisoner at over &#036;1.8 million. This figure is three times the cost of imprisoning a person for life, and it includes only three stages of the judicial proceedings. It does not include additional court security, and counsel fees, nor does it include the estimated millions of dollars associated with state and federal post- conviction reviews and with the execution itself. California spends an extra &#036;90 million per year on capital punishment. In Florida, each execution costs the state &#036;3.2 million, six times more than incarcerating a prisoner for life. Texas, with the highest execution rate and one of the highest murder rates in the country, spends an estimated &#036;2.3 million per capital case. This is roughly three times the cost of keeping someone in prison for 40 years. The death penalty&#33;

Link (http://papercamp.com/soc61.htm)

Although based on1982 research, I&#39;d go out on a limb and say that it is not much cheaper today.


The average cost to hold a prisoner per day is &#036;51 general fund or &#036;18,615 per year. &#036;18,615 multiplied by 0.2 convictions with prison time per year is &#036;3723. The prisoner could potentially be held for up to 15 years longer than is currently in statute. &#036;3723 multiplied by 15 is &#036;55,845. However, to look at it a different way, it currently costs &#036;186,150 to hold a prisoner for 10 years. It costs &#036;465,375 to hold a prisoner for 25 years. That is a difference of &#036;279,225.

Link (http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/H0123.html)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

nor does it include the estimated millions of dollars associated with state and federal post- conviction reviews and with the execution itself.

Post-conviction reviews... wtf.
If the trial was performed properly there would be no need for such beraucracy(sp?), which probably amounts to 3/4ths of the total cost.

Take away the money(which won&#39;t exist in communist society) lawyers, judges and pen-pushers, and then you&#39;ll only have to factor in the cost of shackles, pens and notepaper, (the trial can be held ina town hall or similar.) and of course the bullet used to execute the guilty party.

I can&#39;t imagine a bullet using many resources.

[The Children of the Revolution]

I am leery of "community service" schemes; it seems to me that they would have the potential of gathering a lot of cheap labor to do shitty jobs that no one else wants to do. In such a situation, there would be considerable incentive to create artificial "crimes" to increase the labor pool...that would be a bad thing, in my view. It would be a "mild" version of slave labor.


" they would have the potential of gathering a lot of cheap labor to do shitty jobs that no one else wants to do. "

This is true. But is not a bad thing. They have committed crimes, therefore as well as rehabilitation, they should repay the community. By doing "shitty jobs", they provide a necessary service at a low cost; are punished; and fewer law abiding citizens have to do "shitty jobs". There is the potential for abuse, I agree. Such a system would need regulating. But is a fundamentally good plan.



I am in favor of execution for serious crimes of violence.


No&#33; ESPECIALLY not on the grounds of cost&#33; ("Long prison terms are resource-intensive") You are putting a price on human life - not acceptable comrade&#33;

Prisons should certainly be reformed, they need not be "de-humanising". But your point about public opinion not tolerating "decent" conditions also applies. Prison life should not be comfortable, whilst ordinary "good" people struggle to pay bills and live in squalor. This is why punishment is, and must remain, an integral part of rehabilitation.

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 09:23 PM

Long prison terms are resource-intensive. You have to build the prisons, maintain them, staff them with guards, feed and clothe the prisoners, etc. It may well be cheaper to send someone to Harvard or Oxbridge than to keep them in prison over the same period of time. It is far cheaper to execute a violent sociopath than it is to warehouse him for fifty years or more.

Execution is an extremely expensive process.

some facts (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html)


*EDIT* Hampton posted this earlier. I must have missed it. oops

[Saint-Just]

I am not enirely sure what kind of jobs people in prison can do. Traditionally they have made mail bags in various countries. But, for example, you supposedly could not make prisoners work down a mine because they would need to be well trained and they would have dangerous machinery in their possession.

[Hampton]

A lot of prisons today have factories that the prisoners work in making something like 50 cents an hour to sell products that are sold for hundreds of dollars. Sometimes ironically makeing American flags.

Linky (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=17597&hl=)

[redstar2000]

False, go up to a prisoner and ask them which they would consider more humane, death or prison, I guarantee they will choose the latter. It also defeats the entire object of rehablilitation... and it doesn&#39;t work, because people still commit crimes.

Yes, prisoners in prison would probably choose "life"...since they have been effectively dehumanized to a bestial level (if they weren&#39;t in that condition already), they choose life in the same way and for the same reason that animals do...to prey and to avoid becoming prey.

If you think there is anything genuinely human about life in prison, then you&#39;ve read nothing written by prisoners.

There are no known techniques of rehabilitation for violent sociopaths that work with 100% efficiency. Once a person has shown the willingness to commit unprovoked violence against another person, you release such a person back into the community at your peril.

You are "rolling the dice" for some innocent person who is not even aware that s/he is now being placed at deadly risk.

I did not make an argument regarding "deterrence". I actually have no idea whether any particular penalty actually deters a crime or not. I want the known violent sociopath permanently stopped from doing it again.


Yes, but what if there has been a miscarriage of Justice?

Indeed, this argument has been raised before. And it carries weight. Certainly under capitalism we have seen many people sent to prison for long terms for crimes they did not commit.

Hopefully, we will make better use of forensic tools (DNA analysis, etc.). We will not have people who make their careers by "obtaining convictions" at any cost. In fact, the whole "criminal justice system" that we suffer under now will largely be a thing of the past in communist society.

But will it be certain that we will "never" execute an innocent person? No. We will be as careful as we can and we will still make mistakes.

We are humans, not gods.


The community service schemes in place in Britain are hardly slave labour, I would suggest a similar system for all minor crimes.

Compulsory labor for others is always a kind of slave labor...and note that I did use the world "mild".


yeah, I&#39;m sure ending slavery was horrible...

A remarkably stupid and irrelevant comment, Enema, even for you.

-------------------------------------

As to the figures and links posted by Hampton, I do not dispute them in the least.

But they are all predicated on the assumption of the existing and enormously bloated "criminal justice system" with literally hordes of judges and attorneys and lackeys that "need to be fed" from the process.

I don&#39;t think we&#39;ll have anything like that under communism.

------------------------------------


This is true. But is not a bad thing. They have committed crimes, therefore as well as rehabilitation, they should repay the community. By doing "shitty jobs", they provide a necessary service at a low cost; are punished; and fewer law abiding citizens have to do "shitty jobs".

This essentially says that slave labor is "ok" provided the community as a whole is the "master".

No, that will not do. With the abolition of wage-slavery, we will have abolished compulsory labor. If we re-introduce it for convicted criminals--especially for minor offenses--we have put the worm back in the apple.

And it won&#39;t stay there; the "potential for abuse" will be realized.


Prisons should certainly be reformed, they need not be "de-humanising". But your point about public opinion not tolerating "decent" conditions also applies. Prison life should not be comfortable...

The more "uncomfortable" prison life is, the more dehumanizing it is. You cannot have it both ways. If prisons are humane, then people will be pissed. If prisons are hell-holes, then prisoners will be reduced to animals...and vicious animals at that.

--------------------------------------

I note that no one has responded to the point that I made about a prison culture that would gradually "seep" into communist society and the effects it would inevitably have.

Who will guard all those huge prisons? What kind of people will they be? What will they turn into as a consequence of their job? What political views will they articulate?

You had better really think about that. To paraphrase something I read once: the problem with prisons is that it turns people into animals...and not just the prisoners.

What would an elaborate prison system make us?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade Yars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 05:44 PM
Certainly under capitalism we have seen many people sent to prison for long terms for crimes they did not commit.

Huh...even being a fellow comrade, I find it hard to single out a capitalist system in regards to sentencing people for crimes they did not commit. This is for the most part by all means in accordance to an honest mistake. Surely, mistakes are not to be excused when dealing with another human life, however they are mistakes that can be made under any system... be it capitalist, socialist, etc. Forensic Science is Forensic Science, whether under one system of the other.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 18 2003, 09:32 PM
We punish people to deter others from committing crimes. Punishing such people demonstrates our intolerance towards anti-social and criminal behaviour. No one is above punishment, punishment is not absolutely inhumane. Punishment that is out of proportion to the crime committed is inhumane. Imprisoning people for many years seems brutal, however small punishments do not. For example when we say a child cannot have an ice cream because they have behaved badly. It seems reasonable, a small punishment for a small misdemeanour.

Imprisonment is a punishment like any other. It is more severe than some punishments and less severe than some punishments. Equally it is a greater deterrent than some punishments and so on. My point is that imprisonment is entirely reasonable for certain crimes that society decides are deserving of that punishment. In addition, it is necessary to create a safe and functional society. There are of course other ways to make society safe, however imprisonment is a necessary one of many ways to do this.

Some people can be rehabilitated. Punishment is an important part of that rehabilition. It makes criminals aware that what they have done is wrong. If they accept what they have done is wrong they can be rehabilitated. And, as I said it works as a deterrent.


The Danish prison system had the lowest rate of return offenders - It kinda proves the point that rehabilitation is better than punishment..

I think this is an issue that is affected greatly by the nature of Danish society. Traditionally these Scandinavian countries have had a strong sense of community because of the fact that the countries were originally very difficult to survive in. Thus people relied heavily on those around them to survive and were less likely to commit crime - similar to socialist society.
I am opposed to ALL forms of punishment.

Thank you anyway. You have encouraged me
to write an essay about alternatives to punishment.

[Comrade Yars]

The Criminal Justice System, as flawed as it may seem, is far more complex than many seem to be percieving it. Believe it or not, several different systems have been considered over the years, even since iit&#39;s early beginnings in the UK (which is essentially where the US system was derived from). I feel it would almost be unfair to consider the "system" as it would be called, as one single unit. Every state in essence utilizes it&#39;s own form of criminal justice... be it through deterrence, or by other means. These statewide sub-systems are constantly under reform, through the use of statistics, what deters crime, what seems to be working / not, etc... this is all naturally under the assumption that these statistics are true.

Criminal incarceration I believe is neccessary to a certain point. Labor camps can only be utilized up to a certain point. For instance, digging ditches, construction, anything simple that doesn&#39;t require a large amount of training would surely suffice. Also, you have to consider the will of a criminal to even want to participate in such events... truth be told you can only force one to participate in something to a point at which they simply don&#39;t want to. Keeping a criminal in a box for a long period of time is by all means ideal for the simple fact that this alone would isolate them from society, preventing them from committing crimes any longer. Surely it costs nearly &#036;25,000 per inmate,but one must keep in mind, executions have been priced in the billions per person... oddly enough it can cost more to keep them, than to take their lives. Rehab, obviously also has it&#39;s highs and lows... personaly I feel it&#39;s nearly impossible to determine whether or not a person is neccessarily fit for rehab, or whether they are using it as a means to break free of the criminal justice system and commit crimes again once they are deemed "fit" to return to society. One must remember that rehabilitation is considered being &#39;out&#39; of the criminal justice system... leaving murderers and the like under the supervision of doctors, who have been known to make wrong decisions, just as anyone else.

The system is in essence double edged sword... incarceration, rehab and the like all have their highs and lows. I suppose sorting them out is the key, though I find it hard to even do this... hence the reason the US criminal justice system is under constant reform...

[Comrade Yars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 06:36 PM
I am opposed to ALL forms of punishment.


By all means this is NOT meant to be an attack on you, this is merely a scenario.

Given the situation: A serial killer decides he&#39;s going to indulge himself in killing your entire family for his own personal gratification.

Lets assume he&#39;s been caught and detained. Seeing as how you obviously disagree with any form of punishment... just what would you have done to him?

[redstar2000]

Huh...even being a fellow comrade, I find it hard to single out a capitalist system in regards to sentencing people for crimes they did not commit. This is for the most part by all means in accordance to an honest mistake.

I must disagree. Aggressive prosecution of "crime" seems to be more of a feature of modern capitalism than of pre-capitalist social orders.

Property casts an "ideological shadow" (for want of a better phrase) in capitalism that it didn&#39;t do in previous times. It&#39;s at the very center of what is "right" and "wrong".

I believe the first formal police force in London (late 18th century/early 19th century) was begun at the very time of the rise of corporate capitalism.

The political "reputation" of being perceived as "tough on crime" is one that is advantageous in bourgeois politics. The pursuit of convictions "at any cost" has led to many clear and obvious injustices...and I don&#39;t think they were "just mistakes".

Since we will probably not even have lawyers in communist societies (or judges either)...there will be no "pressing imperative" to convict somebody, anybody, of a particular crime.

I rather envision a modern version of the Athenian trial (for serious crimes of violence or counter-revolutionary sabotage). Either the victim and/or the victim&#39;s family, friends, and neighbors will be the accusers; the defendant and his/her family, friends, neighbors, etc. will speak for him/her. Forensic experts will deliver "neutral" evidence on "what actually happened". A large jury, perhaps 500 or so people (chosen by lottery), will vote on guilt or innocence and, if guilty, then vote on a sentence (probation for a first offense, short jail term, exile--if practical--or execution). The entire process will be overseen by temporary judges (perhaps 3 in number), chosen by lottery (demarchy).

If the verdict is guilty and the sentence is execution, it might be well to give the victim or those close to him/her the option of being the executioner.

There will be no appeals. The people have spoken.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade Yars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 02:25 AM
I must disagree. Aggressive prosecution of "crime" seems to be more of a feature of modern capitalism than of pre-capitalist social orders.

I believe the first formal police force in London (late 18th century/early 19th century) was begun at the very time of the rise of corporate capitalism.

The political "reputation" of being perceived as "tough on crime" is one that is advantageous in bourgeois politics. The pursuit of convictions "at any cost" has led to many clear and obvious injustices...and I don&#39;t think they were "just mistakes".

Indeed, aggressive prosecution of crime is surely prevalent in capitalist society. However consider this: as of a very recently New York currently has the only declared system that engages in an "aggressive" style of law enforcement or an "essembly-line" system of prosecution as it may be called... producing an abundance of errors and the like.

A most recent reform is in it&#39;s first stages, presented by one of the most important contributions to systematic thought about criminal justice, Herbert Packer, as he describes two competing models of our criminal justice system; Crime Control model, and the Due Process model... Crime Control being this "essembly line" I speak of, and Due Process being more of an..."obstacle course" of you will.

As the USA had implimented the Crime Control model during the early 70&#39;s, Criminologists are just beginning to realize the benefits of the Due Process Model. This model theoreticaly assumes that freedom is so important that every effort must be made to ensure that criminal justice decisions are based on reliable information. It stresses the adversarial process, the rights of defendants, and formal decision making procedures.

Basically under this system (Due Process Model) the state must prove that the person is guilty of the crime as charged. Prosecuters must prove their cases while obeying rules dealing with matters such as admissibility of evidence and respect for the defendants rights. In essence this model values efficient case processing and punishment over the possibility that innocent people might be swept up in the process...

My point is that the only state that currently recognizes the Crime Control model... "tough on crime" (as all did at one point)... is New York... which to me I suppose, provides myself with some sort of hope in that our Criminal Justice System can be Just... in less accordance to political quotas, and with more orientation towards the rights of the people.

[kylie]

hie
http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/pygmybarnyard/images/Daisy.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Go away kid.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 05:35 PM
A lot of prisons today have factories that the prisoners work in making something like 50 cents an hour to sell products that are sold for hundreds of dollars. Sometimes ironically makeing American flags.

Linky (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=17597&hl=)
Interesting, they still weren&#39;t able to produce more than the cost of keeping them imprisoned.


Thank you anyway. You have encouraged me
to write an essay about alternatives to punishment.

It will be good to see what you think the alternative to punishment is since I cited punishment as indespensible.

[redstar2000]

A most recent reform is in it&#39;s first stages, presented by one of the most important contributions to systematic thought about criminal justice, Herbert Packer, as he describes two competing models of our criminal justice system; Crime Control model, and the Due Process model... Crime Control being this "assembly line" I speak of, and Due Process being more of an..."obstacle course" of you will.

While superficially more appealing, the "due process" model inherently favors the wealthy accused...who can get out of jail on bail.

The average person will spend years in jail or even prison while the appellate process travels upwards at the proverbial snail&#39;s pace. Indeed, that is what usually happens now in capital crimes where the death penalty is invoked.

The way we do things now is make people spend seven or eight or more years in a hellhole and then execute them.

As I noted earlier, anything the capitalist system does is going to be horrible.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade Yars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 02:25 PM
While superficially more appealing, the "due process" model inherently favors the wealthy accused...who can get out of jail on bail.

The average person will spend years in jail or even prison while the appellate process travels upwards at the proverbial snail&#39;s pace. Indeed, that is what usually happens now in capital crimes where the death penalty is invoked.

The way we do things now is make people spend seven or eight or more years in a hellhole and then execute them.

I can&#39;t quite follow the notion that you seem to think the Due Process Model inherently favors the wealthy...

Studies of pretrial detention have raised surely questions about the need to even hold defendants in jail. Criticisms of the bail system have focused on judges&#39; descretion in setting bail amounts, the fact that the poor are deprived of their freedom while the affluent can afford bail (as you more or less mentioned), the negative aspects of bail bondsmen, and the jail conditions for those detained while awaiting trial. To address such criticisms people have attempted for several years to reform the entire bail system...

To deal with the problem of unequal treatment, reformers have written a number of guidelines for setting bail. The guidelines specify the standards judges should use in setting bail and also list appropriate amounts. The guidelines take into account the family income, job obligations, seriouness of the offense and the defendants prior record, in order to protect the community and esure that released offenders can be "trusted" to even return to court... as history has several accounts of those fleeing once acquiring release through bail. This risk is all determined in a process known as "Preventative Detention"... involving both the prosecution and defense.

As I&#39;ve come to understand the value placed on liberty for individuals seems to ber denied when presumptively innocent individuals remain in jail... on the othe hand however, the value on all citizens&#39; ability to enjoy the freedom of walking the streets without fear of crime may be advanced by detaining specific individuals who are found the threten community safety through the "Preventative Detention" process.

An important groundbreaking reform that one should also consider is the Bail Reform Act of 1984... which in essence set most of these bail regulations I speak of, and the "Preventative Detention" process.

In mentioning how the "average" person will spend years in jail or prison during the appellate process, understand you are noting a thing of the past... one determining factor in the amount of time it would take for defendants to wait for their appelate results has to do with the number of courts the appeal would go through (after several unsuccessful attemps, they would simply keep trying). Chief Justice Rehnquist has actively sought to reduce the opportunities for capital punishment defendants to have their appeals heard by multiple courts.

Also note in 1996 Bill Clinton signed the anti-terrorism and Effective Death Pentaly Act that requires death row inmates to file habeas appeals within one year and requires federal judges to issue their dicisions within strict time limits.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Comrade Yars+Nov 19 2003, 07:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Comrade Yars @ Nov 19 2003, 07:27 PM)
[email protected] 19 2003, 06:36 PM
I am opposed to ALL forms of punishment.


By all means this is NOT meant to be an attack on you, this is merely a scenario.

Given the situation: A serial killer decides he&#39;s going to indulge himself in killing your entire family for his own personal gratification.

Lets assume he&#39;s been caught and detained. Seeing as how you obviously disagree with any form of punishment... just what would you have done to him? [/b]
Two words: treat him.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Anti-Fascist+Nov 20 2003, 05:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Anti-Fascist @ Nov 20 2003, 05:51 PM)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 19 2003, 07:27 PM

[email protected] 19 2003, 06:36 PM
I am opposed to ALL forms of punishment.


By all means this is NOT meant to be an attack on you, this is merely a scenario.

Given the situation: A serial killer decides he&#39;s going to indulge himself in killing your entire family for his own personal gratification.

Lets assume he&#39;s been caught and detained. Seeing as how you obviously disagree with any form of punishment... just what would you have done to him?
Two words: treat him. [/b]
How can you treat such a person without punishment. Surely the serial-killer will not grasp the fact that they have done something wrong and unacceptable to society unless they are punished.

[redstar2000]

To deal with the problem of unequal treatment, reformers have written a number of guidelines for setting bail. The guidelines specify the standards judges should use in setting bail and also list appropriate amounts. The guidelines take into account the family income, job obligations, seriousness of the offense and the defendants prior record, in order to protect the community and ensure that released offenders can be "trusted" to even return to court... as history has several accounts of.

That&#39;s very interesting...but if you are poor, you won&#39;t get released unless you can "make your bail", whatever the amount might be.

How many people are in jail right now awaiting trial? How long do they have to wait?

I have no figures to hand, but I&#39;m aware it&#39;s common practice for judges to sentence convicted persons to "time served"...they&#39;ve been in jail longer than the penalty for their crime.

It doesn&#39;t really matter what the "guidelines" suggest or even compel; what matters is the actual practice.


Also note in 1996 Bill Clinton signed the anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that requires death row inmates to file habeas appeals within one year and requires federal judges to issue their decisions within strict time limits.

So this cuts down the waiting time until what, a couple of years?

Perhaps that&#39;s as "humane" as the capitalist legal system can manage.

But would you "enjoy" spending a couple of years anticipating your imminent execution?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas