Happy New Year! I’ve spent the day so far lazing around, eating leftover pizza and listening to music. And that’s about all I’m going to do, I think.
I’ll be back at work blogging tomorrow.
In the meantime, does anyone have any especially fond memories of Tom Martin and/or Steele from the past year?
Oh, and here’s a video from an Old School New Wave band called Polyphonic Size. It was 1983. They were from Belgium.
“One the one hand it doesn’t seem fair to punish someone forever for something they did when they couldn’t understand the gravity of their action, but on the other, what right does society have to force a person to change? I don’t have a good answer for that, but I don’t think enough people consider the ethical questions that rehabilitation creates.”
Seriously? You find it less ethical to attempt rehabilitation than to just lock someone away forever / a long time without even trying rehabilitation?
You do get that people don’t have to go for parole and shit, right? (When Mansin shows up to his parole hearings, he makes a mockery of them, he wants to stay in prison and he’s going to get to.)
Diogenes, you understand that rehab is a voluntary process and not something out of The Clockwork Orange?
Ugh, it’s like watching someone take Baby’s First Philosophy Class. It’s painful to watch.
Oh, the Ludovico Treatment?
Incredible book BTW.
*bangs head on wall*
Why do our trolls make me wish I could drink myself down to their level of stupid?
Diogenes, skip the references for a second and try keeping up with your actual argument, k? Do you actually think that a life sentence or other long sentence is more ethical than offering rehabilitation? In all cases or just some?
Various crimes do actually respond well to rehab btw, eg drug rehab for drug crimes (makes perfect sense if you think about it)
Argenti, honey, don’t try to do that. Not only is it impossible because hey there disengenuous troll bullshit, hangovers are no fun.
Lol, I said “wish I could” for a reason! I did sort of try that once over the summer, and yeah, hangovers are no fun (I wasn’t really trying to out stupid the trolls, just ound it amusing that I could type better than I could walk and hey, they still made no sense!)
Depends on the purpose and motivations behind the rehabilitation.
If the criminal wants to change themselves, all is well and good. If help for changing is available in jail, all is well and good. But the whole thing about making life skills classes mandatory for parole is a bit of a problem. For one thing, it really isn’t a free will decision.
For another, I have come to the conclusion that parole is just an artificial way of keeping people inside of the prison-industrial complex for more time than necessary. They make it impossible to move, and former criminals then can’t go to another state for a better job. They are legally discriminated against. If they sold pot, they aren’t allowed to get tuition assistance from the feds. It looks like an entire system built to keep enough slave laborers available to the U.S. government for their prison industries. Recidivism rates are high, and I suspect that thats being done intentionally.
As far as drug charges go, thats another story. They should be legal to begin with. But unfortunately some narrow minded people have appointed themselves as the arbiters for others health decisions. But as it is, we jail people for drug, and alcohol related charges, and force people who get DUI’s to go to AA. I think that is downright immoral. If a person wants to remain an alcoholic, I don’t see why the state thinks it has the authority to change them. If they want to keep using drugs, so be it. If the courts have to have a problem with it, then jail the people. But ordering people into drug or alcohol programs? No. Totally immoral.
We just don’t have that kind of power.
@argenti, glad you tackled that. I just looked at what he wrote and just couldn’t be bothered. I had wine to drink and Gavin and Stacey to watch (crackin’ UK sitcom). But you are right,I thought fuck the reference and think about the idea.
Diogenes. Assuming anything you say is real, do you have direct experience of working with people in the prison system or who use drugs/alcohol?
Arglefuckingbargle, it keeps eating my comment, tackling this in chunks then!
First, because it’s least relevant and most complex, drug legislation!
Pot? Sure, not in public, not to minors, no driving while high, but it is less harmful than alcohol. Hallucinogens? Fine if you get caught, or are selling more than small amounts? Problem here is everything that’s either addictive, or likely to make you a danger to others. Which is where jail or rehab, your choice, makes a lot more sense than just going “hey, you’re addicted to heroin, but that’s cool, that’s your choice!”
It’d be goddamned immoral not to offer rehab.
As for DUI, rehab or we take your license — you do not get to be a danger to the rest of us. The risk to society far outweighs the loss of personal liberty.
“But the whole thing about making life skills classes mandatory for parole is a bit of a problem. For one thing, it really isn’t a free will decision.”
1) parole is optional
2) excluding certain types of crimes, many repeat offenders repeat because their “lifestyle” involves crime — legalizing sex work would reduce this, but it’s a great example of where teaching marketable skills could really help
3) you really think life skills courses are a bigger infringement on personal liberty than being kept in a cell?
I take it your experience with prison is from watching tv?
“For another, I have come to the conclusion that parole is just an artificial way of keeping people inside of the prison-industrial complex for more time than necessary.”
Except parole can result in a shorter sentence overall, while allowing more freedom than prison does.
“They make it impossible to move, and former criminals then can’t go to another state for a better job.”
So does still being in prison. Oh wait! That makes it impossible to get any job! Hell, you can’t even get a new roommate if this one likes beating on you! Hint here, paroles the less hitter option.
“They are legally discriminated against.”
And how the ever loving fuck would doing away with parole change, say, the laws that prevent felons from voting?
Your logical train of thought is all over the place here, and seems to amount to “fucking cops!”
“If they sold pot, they aren’t allowed to get tuition assistance from the feds.”
See previous, though it isn’t just selling, possession counts as a drug offense. Note, this is BS, but I don’t think pot should be any more illegal than alcohol.
You’re also completely ignoring racism btw, but I’ve kept my mother writing long enough already. I’ll have to tackle that later, unless someone else gets to it first.
One the one hand it doesn’t seem fair to punish someone forever for something they did when they couldn’t understand the gravity of their action, but on the other, what right does society have to force a person to change? I don’t have a good answer for that, but I don’t think enough people consider the ethical questions that rehabilitation creates.
This is a cynic?
If we assume that we imprison people to protect society from their future harms; based on past harms, then what is the problem with a life sentence?
If so all sentences should be open ended.
If a person is rehabilitated, they get released.
No problem right? Anyone who wants to change (and so be released) is free to do so. Everyone else is no longer a threat to society.
For another, I have come to the conclusion that parole is just an artificial way of keeping people inside of the prison-industrial complex for more time than necessary. They make it impossible to move, and former criminals then can’t go to another state for a better job
Because if they weren’t paroled, but kept in prison they’d be 1,000 miles away, and working?
What the fuck? Want to make it possible for ex-cons to get jobs? Make it against the law to ask about convictions. Solves most of the actual problem.
. But as it is, we jail people for drug, and alcohol related charges, and force people who get DUI’s to go to AA. I think that is downright immoral. If a person wants to remain an alcoholic, I don’t see why the state thinks it has the authority to change them.
What? You think attending meetings makes one sober?
What a community has the right to do is protect itself. If someone is less of a threat by virtue of exposure to help with a problem, that’s less of a harm then locking them up (personal liberty being a good thing). If they violate the terms of their parole, then they get locked up. If they want to not attend the AA meetings, they can take the jail time.
If they want to attend, and then his the bar, they can. If they get arrested again, for DUI, then the expected punishment increases.
I don’t see the immorality.
Starla: @katz
Why bother? I already admitted I was wrong.
Because we aren’t, though some seem to think so, a debating society; arguing for fun.
That question of katz is different to the ones previously being entertained, and goes to the heart of the question. If you think you were wrong then, it’s worth looking to the underlying principles; because the question will come up again.
And you seemed pretty sure of what punishments were appropriate the whole time you were shooting me down.
No, what most of us were sure about is what wasn’t appropriate. A decided difference.
I also didn’t realize that you ran this community and decided how everyone should behave on this website. I will try to dictate myself accordingly next time.
Self-important much. katz has been directly engaging you, and you’ve been blowing her off. Now you are being an ass. But you also expect to be treated gently because you used magic words.
Good luck with the MRM.
Argenti: You do get that people don’t have to go for parole and shit, right? (When Mansin shows up to his parole hearings, he makes a mockery of them, he wants to stay in prison and he’s going to get to.)
I don’t know that Manson doesn’t want to get out, but he’s not going to, no matter what happens. The only reason he’s not dead is because the death penalty was outlawed. He’s why Calif. reinstated it.
So, if one is certain that being a saint won’t get one out, then the offer of parole is a twisted joke at that point showing the system to be what it is (cruel, arbitrary, and capricious; based on passion not reason) is a reasonable choice.
Were I in his shoes I’d do the same.
“Were I in his shoes I’d do the same.”
Fair enough, but he’s been in the system, in one form or another, most of his life, so I’m pretty sure he’s been institutionalized. (iPad in a grocery line = awesome)
@pecenum
She asked me what the point of punishing her would be, what it would be to accomplish.
The very same question she was asking me when I was saying she should be tried as an adult.
It was not a different question, but I don’t know where I would go with that because like she said, there is no reason to think she would do it again and when I think about it, she won’t stay 14 forever, when she gets older, will the reality of what she did punish her enough? I don’t know. I think at the very least she should have a psychological evaluation, and maybe go from there.
As for blowing her off, I didn’t do it blatantly until she started acting like she knew everything about me and deemed me unfit to be here based on one conversation, a conversation I admitted I botched horribly.
I’m clearly not knowledgable enough about this particular subject to be any use at all, but that doesn’t mean I’m completely useless to be here.
@Starla
I hope not.
@some gal
I think regardless of what happens she is going to need some help in the future for that. But would jail time or even Juvie time be appropriate along with it? I can’t say for sure.
Am I alone in thinking this girl shouldn’t be punished at all? Does that make me a bleeding-heart liberal? A few people have kind of hinted at it but I honestly don’t think that any kind of punishment would be appropriate here, she’s a 14 year old who’s been taken sexually abused (if she’s underage and doesn’t understand how contraception/pregnancy works then I’m pretty comfortable straight-up calling that abuse) and done something because she was at her wit’s end. Even thinking that she should deserve jail for this makes me feel squicky.
*sits back, awaits accusations of hating babies from MRAs*
@thenatfantastic
I’d be inclined to agree with you depending on her mental state. I can’t help but wonder if she was physically abused as well.
There’s a certain you-know-whoishness to Starla’s constant pandering for approval while simultaneously acting like an entitled ass, but there’s also a Ruby-ness to it. Ruby’s never been banned, though, has she?
Nope, Katz. We just seem to have an infestation of Ruby-ettes lately.
Starla: Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you seriously not see the differnce in 1: those two questions and 2: the subsequent question she later asked?
This is how you characterised it:
She asked me what the point of punishing her would be, what it would be to accomplish.
The very same question she was asking me when I was saying she should be tried as an adult.
This is the actual question you are conflating with the earlier:
What is the purpose of punishment?
Not just this instance, but punishment in general.
natfantastic: Am I alone in thinking this girl shouldn’t be punished at all?
Not exactly. Not knowing the facts, I can’t say for sure. From the facts at hand I suspect I don’t see punishment as reasonable, though some form of therapy/intervention seems in order.
How exactly is not letting you kick me around being an entitled ass?