So what does he tape to his cell mate's back?

You know, I'm all for making prison sentences unpleasant and strictly controlled. But, seriously...is restricting the ability of high-risk inmates to self-gratify really make anyone better off? Yes, you can make the emotionally appealing argument that it's wrong to "spend prison resources delivering porn to inmates." But come on. They're delivering mail anyway, so it's not like we're talking about a vast drain on some pile of money. It's a magazine, and it probably goes a long way toward making the guy at least somewhat content.

It amazes me that people spent time and money on this. Grow the hell up you neo-puritans!

I'm not particularly pro-porn, but in what way is it a security risk for this guy to have it? Why else should he not have it?

mcwebe0:I'm not particularly pro-porn, but in what way is it a security risk for this guy to have it?

I don't care for the security risk angle nor the puritan aspect.

I think prisoners should have basic human necessities...but as far as magazines, books, tv...I say fark it. There's no incentive for habitual offenders to want to get out. If you make prison "tolerable", there's no hope for rehabilitation. We've got to make it as boring and unpleasant as possible. Now, for most of us, that is already the case. But for the repeat offenders, it isn't.

I say let all the non-violent drug offenders out of prison, remove all privileges from the remaining inmates, and segregate the population as much as possible (fark recreation time and install fire hoses to clean the cells everyday). Once a repeat armed robber experiences that, I think he'll think twice about quitting MacDonald's and then robbing it.

Prison doesn't work when criminals are treated better than the homeless in this country.

Bonkthat_Again:Prison doesn't work when criminals are treated better than the homeless in this country.

...and let the riots commence.

Mugato:...and let the riots commence.

C'mon...do we even really care about prison riots?

I'm still a fan of Escape From New York

Prison doesn't work when criminals are treated better than the homeless in this country.

Sure it does. For judges, lawyers, and the entire apparatus of the prison industry.

Generation_D:entire apparatus of the prison industry.

It's downright creepy how many small towns now across the US basically have a prison as the one employer in town, and they fight to keep the prisons much as towns used to squabble over military bases. They fight to get prisons the way they used to fight for factories.

Bonkthat_Again:mcwebe0:I'm not particularly pro-porn, but in what way is it a security risk for this guy to have it?

I don't care for the security risk angle nor the puritan aspect.

I think prisoners should have basic human necessities...but as far as magazines, books, tv...I say fark it. There's no incentive for habitual offenders to want to get out. If you make prison "tolerable", there's no hope for rehabilitation. We've got to make it as boring and unpleasant as possible. Now, for most of us, that is already the case. But for the repeat offenders, it isn't.

I say let all the non-violent drug offenders out of prison, remove all privileges from the remaining inmates, and segregate the population as much as possible (fark recreation time and install fire hoses to clean the cells everyday). Once a repeat armed robber experiences that, I think he'll think twice about quitting MacDonald's and then robbing it.

Prison doesn't work when criminals are treated better than the homeless in this country.

Let me guess, you are in your first year of two of college, right??

// the world actually did seem that simple back then...

Can you pick out the pr0n from teh following lineup?
The judge can.


a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y
z

Bonkthat_Again:I think prisoners should have basic human necessities...but as far as magazines, books, tv...I say fark it. There's no incentive for habitual offenders to want to get out. If you make prison "tolerable", there's no hope for rehabilitation.

HAHAHAHA! HAHAHA! You really think people get rehabilitated in prison? WAHAHAHAHA! You really think that making prison "tolerable" is incentive to be there? (You should visit a prison...they could give me a farking 60" tv in my cell and I still wouldn't want to spend an hour there). And better yet, you don't think that treating people like dog shiat is going to piss them the fark off and make them MORE likely to hate the world and not care about authority? WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

BitwiseShift:Can you pick out the pr0n from teh following lineup?
The judge can.


a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y
z

It's the Q.

I say let all the non-violent drug offenders out of prison, remove all privileges from the remaining inmates, and segregate the population as much as possible (fark recreation time and install fire hoses to clean the cells everyday). Once a repeat armed robber experiences that, I think he'll think twice about quitting MacDonald's and then robbing it.

ur newzleter... i can haz it?

Bonkthat_Again:C'mon...do we even really care about prison riots?

I'm still a fan of Escape From New York

So you aren't serious. Whew. For a second there I had you pegged as a bit of an nitwit.

Harsh prisons work so well that 1 in 100 Americans is in prison now. With harsher prisons we could get that number up to 1 in 50 or even 1 in 25!

Seriously, all harsh prisons due is mutate criminals into even nastier incarnations when they get out. That's it. It's emotionally pleasing to be cruel to prisoners... but thus far it's just dramatically escalated the number of people in prisons and created ridiculous crap like the Aryan Nation that causes problems both in and outside of prison.

You might not mind a double-digit percentage of your paycheck going to locking down the monsters our prisons create... but I do.

Ummmm....He doesn't HAVE those rights anymore.......

Fast Admiral Exorbitant:an nitwit.

I fail. :(

Damn, reminds me of being 14 in '88. Stealing my younger sister's seedy catalogs that you can order thru Cosmo.

When life give you lemons, you make lemonaid.

In this case, life gives you prison without porn...but you have pencils & paper... and um... cell mates to pose for you. make you OWN porn!

Sheesh. Do I have to think of everything?

Pocket Ninja:You know, I'm all for making prison sentences unpleasant and strictly controlled. But, seriously...is restricting the ability of high-risk inmates to self-gratify really make anyone better off? Yes, you can make the emotionally appealing argument that it's wrong to "spend prison resources delivering porn to inmates." But come on. They're delivering mail anyway, so it's not like we're talking about a vast drain on some pile of money. It's a magazine, and it probably goes a long way toward making the guy at least somewhat content.

This, and I'm also pretty sure that they've expended way more resources going to court about this stupid thing than they would have expended by letting this inmate and every other inmate just have their stupid porn. Come to think of it, the filtering process alone has to have cost more money than just delivering the mail.

If prison inmates dont jerk it then theres gonna be a lot more aggression and violence. Guys get all irritated and uppity if they cant bust a nut, especially if they're in the mood, so let them do it. The worst part is that they aren't taught how to live in the real world so when they're let out, they're going to take out all that pent up aggression on some innocent woman and end up in prison again.

/DNRTFA

Maybe they should just wank on command.

Bonkthat_Again:I say let all the non-violent drug offenders out of prison

Uh, non-violent drug offenders have cost me nearly $15,000 and effectively put a friend's company out of business and a few dozen people out of work. Just because they are non-violent doesn't mean they are harmless.

I would personally have no problem physically jamming a blunted steel spike thru each of their waste-of-raw-materials skulls.

Let them rot.

Je5tEr:Uh, non-violent drug offenders have cost me nearly $15,000 and effectively put a friend's company out of business and a few dozen people out of work. Just because they are non-violent doesn't mean they are harmless.

Look, just because you bought $15,000 in drugs and your friend ran into competition doesn't mean you should be angry at them.

knucklebreather:You might not mind a double-digit percentage of your paycheck going to locking down the monsters our prisons create... but I do.

"Society" routinely kills dangerous animals which are far less likely to cause harm to people than the career criminals in prisons.

Why do we tolerate the monsters?

Rights? When you're in jail, you don't have rights. That's what jail is: a temporary suspension of your rights. You lose your freedom. And afterwards, as a convicted felon, you've lost the right to vote. You don't like it, don't break the law. It's as easy as that.

They can have my porn when they pry it from my cold dead hands.. though that probably won't be whats in my hands while viewing porn.

Super Chronic:Come to think of it, the filtering process alone has to have cost more money than just delivering the mail.

You're right, with the porn thing out of the way, we could do away with mail filtering altogether!

Dammit, the guy is in jail, he should be thankful that he gets more than just bread and water for all his meals and has something resembling a bed to sleep on. Jail is supposed to suck, that's why it was designed that way in the first place.

Because the best way to rehabilitate is to dehumanize.
/that'll make them contribute to "society"

Je5tEr:Uh, non-violent drug offenders have cost me nearly $15,000 and effectively put a friend's company out of business and a few dozen people out of work. Just because they are non-violent doesn't mean they are harmless.

I would personally have no problem physically jamming a blunted steel spike thru each of their waste-of-raw-materials skulls.

Let them rot.

The only reason they are 'harmful' is because of the ridiculous drug laws in this country. Drugs should not be a criminal activity unless being sold illegally.

I clicked for the linked Victoria's Secret pics. Thus far, this thread is pure fail.

daveydave:Je5tEr:Uh, non-violent drug offenders have cost me nearly $15,000 and effectively put a friend's company out of business and a few dozen people out of work. Just because they are non-violent doesn't mean they are harmless.

I would personally have no problem physically jamming a blunted steel spike thru each of their waste-of-raw-materials skulls.

Let them rot.

The only reason they are 'harmful' is because of the ridiculous drug laws in this country. Drugs should not be a criminal activity unless being sold illegally.

No they are HARMFUL because they do things like STEAL stuff that might be necessary and important to other people who have worked hard to obtain.

insert cliche here:Super Chronic:Come to think of it, the filtering process alone has to have cost more money than just delivering the mail.

You're right, with the porn thing out of the way, we could do away with mail filtering altogether!

Well okay, I see the point you're making, but I think it will be cheaper and simpler if they just filter out sharp objects and books like "Introduction to Prison Security Weaknesses." It still costs incrementally more to go through other stuff and decide where to draw the line with sexual images.

daveydave:The only reason they are 'harmful' is because of the ridiculous drug laws in this country. Drugs should not be a criminal activity unless being sold illegally

The drugs are often secondary to the fact that the individual is already a worthless lowlife scumbag in the first place.

Refering to the harmful non-violent offenders, some dude smoking week on the weekends in his basement we can all agree is harmless except to the Cheetos. (unless you buy the BS that pot money is funding terrorism)

To all: Stop feeding the (Je5tEr) Troll.

Thanks.

Je5tEr:Bonkthat_Again:I say let all the non-violent drug offenders out of prison

Uh, non-violent drug offenders have cost me nearly $15,000 and effectively put a friend's company out of business and a few dozen people out of work. Just because they are non-violent doesn't mean they are harmless.

I would personally have no problem physically jamming a blunted steel spike thru each of their waste-of-raw-materials skulls.

Let them rot.

a) They stole that money becuase their drugs of choice are so expensive. That would be becuase of drug prohibition.

b) I take it there was some theft involved - Damn right they should go to jail for stealing. And they should do their time. I'm pretty sure BonkThat was referring to those in jail on drug charges though, not theft charges.

Je5tEr:daveydave:The only reason they are 'harmful' is because of the ridiculous drug laws in this country. Drugs should not be a criminal activity unless being sold illegally

The drugs are often secondary to the fact that the individual is already a worthless lowlife scumbag in the first place.

Refering to the harmful non-violent offenders, some dude smoking week on the weekends in his basement we can all agree is harmless except to the Cheetos. (unless you buy the BS that pot money is funding terrorism)

Oh, I thought you were talking about marijuana too. 'Cause then it was gonna be on. Yeah, crackheads are another thing altogether though. Sorry for calling you a troll, I assumed you were gonna rant about how someone was high on weed and did something other than play video games...

Je5tEr:No they are HARMFUL because they do things like STEAL stuff that might be necessary and important to other people who have worked hard to obtain.

Theft is a different crime. Most people who use illegal drugs do not steal. Some people steal for food. Or for pleasure. Should we ban food and pleasure, too?

Je5tEr:dNo they are HARMFUL because they do things like STEAL stuff that might be necessary and important to other people who have worked hard to obtain.

That is why the penalties for theft should be harsh. Not slap on the wrists for theft and big penalties for drugs, that's backasswards. Let people do their drugs, they are already, and hey the doctors and pharmacists have the good stuff anyway.

Bonkthat_Again:mcwebe0:I'm not particularly pro-porn, but in what way is it a security risk for this guy to have it?

I don't care for the security risk angle nor the puritan aspect.

I think prisoners should have basic human necessities...but as far as magazines, books, tv...I say fark it. There's no incentive for habitual offenders to want to get out. If you make prison "tolerable", there's no hope for rehabilitation. We've got to make it as boring and unpleasant as possible. Now, for most of us, that is already the case. But for the repeat offenders, it isn't.

I say let all the non-violent drug offenders out of prison, remove all privileges from the remaining inmates, and segregate the population as much as possible (fark recreation time and install fire hoses to clean the cells everyday). Once a repeat armed robber experiences that, I think he'll think twice about quitting MacDonald's and then robbing it.

Prison doesn't work when criminals are treated better than the homeless in this country.

Don't know much about the history of prisons and incarceration, do you?

Some of the harshist prisons in existence were created in Britain during the 19th century (that doesn't even count the prison ships used to transport prisoners to Australia - those made the prisons in Britain during the period seem comfy!). We are talking real starkness, here...

For instance, as punishment, prisoners would be put into cells in which the "floor" was a wheel which would rotate away from under you - so you were continually treading along the wheel, with no rest, little to no light, etc - up to a 24 hour period or more in some cases.

This and many other grueling tasks were designed by those in the Victorian era as a means of rehabilitating prisoners. More often than not, if it didn't kill the prisoner, it maimed them for life. Despite all of this, people still committed crimes and were sentenced to these prisons.

I also wouldn't doubt that some of these same punishment techniques made it over the pond to America - but on both sides, how prisoners were treated during the Victorian era was anything but a light sentence, even for the "lighter" crimes.

The fact is, prisons have not, and will never serve as rehabilitation for criminals. Crime doesn't occur because of upbringing, social status, or because of economic reasons. Crime occurs because it is possible for crime to occur; it is something inate within our animal/human psyche. Only by direct will do most people resist this impulse, but this will breaks down under a variety of circumstances, which we misascribe as being the causes of crime, when in fact they are not; they are only the things which can lead to an individual to commiting a crime. They are not always bad things, either: Some are of such a simple nature such as "I just wanted to see if I could do it" - ie, idle curiousity and desire to test oneself (as opposed to abject poverty and needing something to eat, for instance).

farfigneugan:To all: Stop feeding the (Je5tEr) Troll.

Thanks.

Hehe, bored but not actually trolling, but... thanks?

Honest question: Is the guy whose kitchen meth-lab explodes and burns down his apartment complex while he's out at the Wal-Mart a non-violent drug offender?

I take issue with thenaive assertion that non-violent==non-harmful. Those Enron assholes were non-violent too and I know quite a few people who think they should have hanged.

Je5tEr:Honest question: Is the guy whose kitchen meth-lab explodes and burns down his apartment complex while he's out at the Wal-Mart a non-violent drug offender?

I take issue with thenaive assertion that non-violent==non-harmful. Those Enron assholes were non-violent too and I know quite a few people who think they should have hanged.

Of course non violent does not equal non harmful. You are talking about theft again here, imo a major criminal offense. But drugs should be legal. All of them. A person living in a free country should be able to do whatever they want to their own body, as long as it doesn't harm somebody else. When it does do harm to someone else, the punishment should be harsh.

Darth Otter:a) They stole that money becuase their drugs of choice are so expensive. That would be becuase of drug prohibition.

Actually around here crack/herion etc is pretty damn cheap believe it or not. Pot is more expensive and in an of itself not responsible for much crime not related to traffickers. The issue really is that the harder drugs generally result in people winding up out of work after a while, and perhaps homeless. So even if it costs more to go see a movie in a theatre that to get high for a night, that rapidly gets out of their price range while in no way being expensive.

He's an inmate. To h*ll with it. No TV. No magazines. No books. No mail. Only visitor is his lawyer. Give him three hots (nutritious, bland) and a cot, and medical services when required.

It's prison, not a country club clubhouse.

DirtyOldGeek:He's an inmate. To h*ll with it. No TV. No magazines. No books. No mail. Only visitor is his lawyer. Give him three hots (nutritious, bland) and a cot, and medical services when required.

It's prison, not a country club clubhouse.

so much for rehabilitation.....

you are a scary, sad person if you truly believe that is the way to treat prisoners.

Je5tEr:
Honest question: Is the guy whose kitchen meth-lab explodes and burns down his apartment complex while he's out at the Wal-Mart a non-violent drug offender?

Answer your own question.

oh c'mon a non-violent drug offense involves simple possesion, use or distribution, usually referring to smallish quantities. If you steal for your drugs, kill for your drugs, burn down your apartment complex trying to make your drugs...well, guess what? there are already laws on the books to cover that.