If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
... the onus is on you to explain why they shouldn't be treated nicely: we don't begin by treating everyone cruelly until we a discover a reason not to; we treat everyone well until we have a reason not to.
Why does the fact that an individual has negatively affected someone else's life give us the right to negatively affect said individual's life?
Because they are criminals, that's why the shouldn't be treated nicely.
Because they need to be punished in some way or another to try and stop them from doing it again and if they're treated nicely in prison they won't be scared to go back.
OK, sorry for missing the stream of the debate, but why should one who is in jail for criminal posession of cocaine get the same treatment and shitty conditions as someone in jail for fraud (Bernie Maddoff) or murder?
"A toothache, or a violent passion, is not necessarily diminished by our knowledge of its causes, its character, its importance or insignificance".- T.S. Eliot
OK, sorry for missing the stream of the debate, but why should one who is in jail for criminal posession of cocaine get the same treatment and shitty conditions as someone in jail for fraud (Bernie Maddoff) or murder?
Right... But did the article note what kind of prisoners were recieving this treatment, or did it just make a sweeping generalization?
"A toothache, or a violent passion, is not necessarily diminished by our knowledge of its causes, its character, its importance or insignificance".- T.S. Eliot
Right... But did the article note what kind of prisoners were recieving this treatment, or did it just make a sweeping generalization?
It's not about the article really, it's just that I feel jail is too 'easy' going for people. In the UK prisoners can get PS3's and such. I don't think it matters which kind of crime you did either, but I'm not sure.
It's not about the article really, it's just that I feel jail is too 'easy' going for people. In the UK prisoners can get PS3's and such. I don't think it matters which kind of crime you did either, but I'm not sure.
No, I know, it was because I didn't want to do research :p If it doesn't matter on the crime, then I may be against it.
"A toothache, or a violent passion, is not necessarily diminished by our knowledge of its causes, its character, its importance or insignificance".- T.S. Eliot
I didn't say that. Of course some of them feel regret, but is that really enough? Of course some crimes deserve less punishment than others. But prisoners shouldn't get Playstations and whatnot no matter what the crime was.
Remorse more than regret. Obviously someone might feel "regret" but it could just be regretting the circumstances that led them to get caught. Part of remorse is genuinely admitting that past actions were wrong along with a desire to change oneself for the better, and a willingness to turn one's life around so that the same mistakes won't be made again.
You say some crimes deserve less punishment than others, but you're also lumping all prisoners together with the term "criminal." You said in effect that criminals have affected someone else by committing a crime and then implied that "they" shouldn't be treated nicely as a result. So, do some crimes deserve less punishment than others, or not?
As for the PS3s in prisons, are we specifically discussing if prisoners should be treated nicely (i.e. humanely) or if prisoners should be given access to game consoles? The two are not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manson
Because they are criminals, that's why the shouldn't be treated nicely.
Again with the generalisation. I think when people think of the term "criminal" or "prisoner" they think of murders, serial killers, etc. Like I already mentioned, a lot of prisoners, especially in the US, are in for petty crimes. The US "justice" system isn't all that familiar with the concept of victimless crimes, i.e. a crime that doesn't affect anyone or society as a whole. Should an 18 year old teen who got busted with a few grams of weed be subject to the same treatment as a serial killer? According to you, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manson
Because they need to be punished in some way or another to try and stop them from doing it again and if they're treated nicely in prison they won't be scared to go back.
Prisons are very shitty here in the US and a surprising number of people (a small percentage but still noteworthy) nevertheless stay in willingly. Some prisoners have been known to be released, and then when they realise that the delay in their career caused by prison time has made finding a job and assimilating back into society very difficult, they will purposely commit a crime in order to be thrown back in jail. Being in jail sucks shit, but at least in jail you don't have to worry about where your next meal is coming from or not having a roof over your head. Prisoners, unlike the majority of Americans, also get free healthcare. If you're a highschool dropout with no hope for the future, it's a pretty attractive deal as long as you can put up with cocks forced into your ass multiple times a week.
Today's Toppers
28Likes
Re: Prisons/Jails Should Be More Strict
