Prisoners serving a purpose

[rewhu]

For many years I have debated the following:

Why can’t prisoners, serving life sentences, be used for medical experimentation?

In this scenario the prisoners have been proven 100% guilty in a fair court. There is no chance that they are innocent. They are serving life sentences with no chance of parole. Keep in mind the types of crimes that would warrant a life sentence, the cost of keeping a person in prison, and the number of people serving life sentences. I’m not going to post any numbers because it varies for each country / state. Also consider how testing on living human subjects might change the pharmaceutical industry. What are the moral implications? What are the pros and cons?

I’ve yet to find anyone who would seriously entertain this idea. It just dawned on me that this forum is a perfect place for such a discussion.

[Mozzes]

For many years I have debated the following:

Why can’t prisoners, serving life sentences, be used for medical experimentation?

In this scenario the prisoners have been proven 100% guilty in a fair court. There is no chance that they are innocent. They are serving life sentences with no chance of parole. Keep in mind the types of crimes that would warrant a life sentence, the cost of keeping a person in prison, and the number of people serving life sentences. I’m not going to post any numbers because it varies for each country / state. Also consider how testing on living human subjects might change the pharmaceutical industry. What are the moral implications? What are the pros and cons?

I’ve yet to find anyone who would seriously entertain this idea. It just dawned on me that this forum is a perfect place for such a discussion.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Of course the government has never allowed the Constitution to stand in its way when it comes to squashing individual rights.

There is no such thing as infallibility in the judicial system so unless you deny legal recourse in the event of a false conviction (or even if you don't) this would probably turn into a fiasco.

I don't think individual rights terminate when one breaks the law. And let's not forget that a lot of people are serving a lot of years in prison for non-violent drug offenses (though we can beat that horse another day).

[Josh]

It would never fly as it would be considered cruel by most. However i'm all for it (providing it was a truly heinous crime such as pre meditated murder.) At least they can do something good for humanity to make up for their deeds. I would also support:

-televised fights to the death with large blunt objects and or/ large carnivores

-grinding them up and using as a source of food for the impoverished

-mandatory military service with the deterrent of boiling in oil for any shenanigans

[Mozzes]

:laugh:

You guys have far more faith in government bureaucracy than I do.

[rewhu]

Ok, how about if I add the following premise:

A person is convicted after a series of violent, premeditated murders. While in jail the prisoner admits, "Yes, I did it and if you let me out I'd do it again."

Is this person an acceptable candidate?

What about sending the prisoner to a country that doesn't have the "cruel and unusual punishment" standard?

[Zedicus]

I dont know of a saying that describes this, maybe I could get ssrprotege to invent a word for me, but I think its one of the idea's that can look good on paper, but would turn into a disaster if ever implemented. Plus this one has the added bonus of being on a hill so if you ever started using it, someone would have to constantly monitor it to make sure your not slipping farther down the hill.

I don't know if that made sense to anyone else, but this is what I am thinking.

[Deadgod]

For now, ideas as such are to be abandoned until society knows how to become resourceful and concerned for its own betterment. But if there are non-violent ways of utilizing these criminals for something positive, then this could be good support for making a case against execution.

[ScottH]

LOL. This is a truly funny thread, rife with "F"isms.

The question is really "How much harm is acceptable to impose upon another human being?" All the rest is really "which types of rationalizations make a given candidate an acceptable one?"

That is, in a nut shell, what crime and punishment is all about.

Some of my views:

You can never be 100% certain of guilt.
Prosecutors cheat, police lie, witnesses are sometimes wrong, even the innocent sometimes lie and claim guilt. There are known cases of innocent people being punished and later exonerated.

It isn't necessary to discuss crime in order to discuss the acceptability of punishment.
Heinousness is a subjective judgment (which is worse, rape or murder?), people universally disagree on what constitutes fairness and balance. Is it more or less of a crime to kill a Christian or an Athiest, given their differing beliefs about what will follow their death? Is the "wrongness" of a murder dependent upon the views of the murderer? That last question sheds light on why I am against capital punishment.

Our legal system, while acknowledging it's fallibility, generally chooses a very limited punishment (except for capital punishment) whereby the weight is only born out over very long periods of time. One looses freedom and many related rights, but not basic human rights.

Given that we cannot figure out how to prevent crime--or event to be sure who has done it when it happens--this seems a fair approach as it leaves the innocent-found-guilty room for recovery if and when they can be exonerated. And, in such cases, we often pay them for their lost time.

[Josh]

Oh believe me, there'd be a lot less crime if the punishments were more extreme.

[void]

You know who else advocated (and implemented) usage of incarcerated humans for medical experiments?

With the Godwin out of the way, testing of certain drugs could constitute torture - doesn't matter if it's unintentional. I see nothing wrong with forced physical labor.

[GuerrillaVoyage]

We can't use stem cells because Jesus would cry but we can use living human beings?

I personally would have to think about this a little bit. If the prisoners would volunteer to take part in the experiments for certain perks I don't think I would have a problem with it. However, I have to wonder with where science is at what can a human test subject offer that the currently used test mediums cannot?

I don't think the government is intelligent enough to handle this matter correctly without a epic fuck-up.

[Tocsin]

Why can’t prisoners, serving life sentences, be used for medical experimentation?

I’ve yet to find anyone who would seriously entertain this idea.

It's not hard to understand why.

It just dawned on me that this forum is a perfect place for such a discussion.

I'm sorry you seem to think that INTJ's are either ignorant or immoral enough to entertain notions of conducting medical experiments on human captives.

Personally, I'll leave such discussions to people who might also wonder why we shouldn't be using the skins from human corpses to make lampshades.

[tp6626]

I'd be up for it.

You can never be 100% certain of guilt.
This is not the issue. They have been found guilty and are gonna be executed.

Would it not be better to give them an option of either execution or scientific research? Surely that extends their human rights at that time.

You'd imagine an existence akin to torture in this situation, but I don't believe that would necessarily be the case. There are many things researchers could do to make the patients comfortable.

I can see two main benefits:
1. Scientific research would benefit, in that testing of human medicines etc could be speeded up immensely.
2. Some prisoners could do it as a kind of repenting. Doing a good deed to humanity to attempt to repent for their crime.

I'd hazard a guess that this stuff does go on actually, in more underdeveloped and militaristic countries.

[void]

Personally, I'll leave such discussions to people who might also wonder why we shouldn't be using the skins from human corpses to make lampshades.

What's wrong with that idea? Terms of sale might be tricky to enforce - with the vendor being dead and all - and the lampshade companies can't really expect product quality guarantees. But that's the worst that could happen. Other things being equal, the lampshade companies will make a killing (ba-dum-pssh).

I'll be here all week folks. Try the waitress and tip the veal.

[Wufnu]

You could always be like China and sell the organs of the prisoners you execute. I mean, they're already dead... what do they care?

Honestly, I don't care if we make them useful before we kill them, either. Put'em to work.

[xtremegeek]

It would be great if the medical and psychiatric communities could learn enough from the harshest of criminals that we can prevent future generations from heading down that same path. Test their blood, their urine, scan their brains, treat them with drugs, check their genetic design, whatever! But darn it learn enough about these psychopaths to prevent future generations of psychopaths from forming.

[BlackMita]

Personally, I think that idea would be worse then getting rid of prison and giving everyone a gun. I'm too lazy to back that up though (its a whole other discussion anyway).

[Avid]

Be a better idea to put them to use farming some land. They would have something to look forward to and make food for people. Maybe they could even make some money out of it for their family? Wonder if there are any programs for that actually.

Kinda sad that prison food is higher quality than school food.

[Tocsin]

Reading through various replies on this thread I find it surprising that people still wonder how the Nazis became so popular in Germany - and how genocide can become socially tolerable.

[ScottH]

Oh believe me, there'd be a lot less crime if the punishments were more extreme.

You strike upon a very important fact: sentencing guidelines are intended more to deter future crime than to punish current offenders. A good argument can be made that this constitutes injustice, but that's another post.

On the whole, the deterrent effect doesn't work, however, no more a constant barrage of facts about cigarette smoking stops smokers. Humans aren't rational, and often believe "it won't be me..."





ScottH added to this post, 5 minutes and 56 seconds later...

...If the prisoners would volunteer to take part in the experiments for certain perks I don't think I would have a problem with it...

It's been done, the offending State's sued and gobs of public funds given to the victims (prisoners).

Why? Once sentenced to a lengthy sentence in an environment where money is all but impossible to get, people will "sell their souls," so to speak, for a chance to earn some fun, or even money with which to help support their loved ones. Prisoners can not enter into contracts for such reasons, and it is the incarcerating body's responsibility to protect them from such abuse.

I know it sounds like Christian rhetoric (from me, an agnostic), yet my years convince me that the following is true: do not condone abuse of another that you yourself are not willing to undergo, because you might just be surprised how quickly you can become them. To classify some group as "less worthy" is a slippery slope.

[rewhu]

You know who else advocated (and implemented) usage of incarcerated humans for medical experiments?

With the Godwin out of the way, testing of certain drugs could constitute torture - doesn't matter if it's unintentional. I see nothing wrong with forced physical labor.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.'s_law

LOL! Truly, I figured it was only a matter of time. The Nazis correlation was to be expected. I chose to leave the obvious out of my original post in order to allow people to reach their own conclusions.

Please bear in mind that just because somebody posits an offensive topic doesn’t mean that person is necessarily condoning said topic.

I maintain that this forum is the perfect place for discussion, no matter how ludicrous or controversial the subject. In any thread, even the ones about suicide and pedophilia, members have made room for serious debate, humor and “what ifs”. I don’t know of too many other places where people can debate harsh subjects in a nonaggressive manner. I say good for us!

Definitely some interesting points being raised. Avid’s idea re: farm labor sounds plausible. Of course prisoners have long been used to pave roads, pick up trash, etc. In my home state I regularly see prisoners landscaping areas on the highway.

Once sentenced to a lengthy sentence in an environment where money is all but impossible to get, people will "sell their souls," so to speak, for a chance to earn some fun, or even money with which to help support their loved ones. Prisoners can not enter into contracts for such reasons, and it is the incarcerating body's responsibility to protect them from such abuse.

Very true! The mental stability of the prisoner does need to be considered, especially if a reward system is in place.

Now, would your opinion be influenced if the prisoners weren’t serving life sentences, but already on death row? Are prisoners who have been proven guilty and are scheduled for execution more suitable candidates?

[GuerrillaVoyage]

How do we make lifers benefit society without turning them into labor slaves?

[enWTFp]

Haha, Dr. Mengele was an INTJ.

My view is that experimenting on alive people is wrong, without their strict consent. The problem is that consent is also a very flawed term and can be stretched badly. Still, if there is a serious enough legal procedure, I may agree to permit prisoners with a life sentence to participate in experiments, if they strictly prefer so (and prove to be in good mental health). But the admission procedure should be very heavy and as secure as possible.

In general, there is a reason why life sentence exists. Even the worst monsters among humans, who have done the worst of crimes, are still humans, who have their own official rights and dignity in front of the law, and they just pay their duty with the sentence they serve. No, they will never be free, no matter how changed they are in some years, but a person there could still write a revolutionary book, or create something else, to leave to humanity. While alive, these people are still people, and not just meat under the knife.

With the dead people it's different. I didn't know about this law in China. I actually approve this, I vote for it with both hands. I don't think dead body is more than just meat anymore, and it should be used to a good cause. This is how my parents thought about their bodies and I think the same. After my death I don't mind what happens with this piece of organic matter - it is not me anymore, I'm not there, and it has nothing to do with the person that I was anymore. Just a useless empty shell. In addition, I don't judge people who were lost in a disaster, their friends died, and they had to eat them to survive. This is not a crime to me, although the only excuse for it would be such disastrous conditions. Cannibalism "for fun" should be treated as a serious crime and mental disorder.

To summarize: do what you want with the dead, but do not touch the alive, please.

(On a second thought, I see the problem with this law in China. Some people and their families would not approve it, because of religious or other beliefs. That should definitely be respected! Such law should only be applied to people that have not disagreed with it.)

[Wufnu]

The problem with China is that they don't donate, the government sells their organs. It may have made the the whole execution process a bit more... expedient. If you follow. Reminds me of that Monty Python skit, without the whole agreeing to donate part.

[Hdier]

Well, personally, I don't like having to pay for criminals. Sure the food and shelter is worse than what you'd find in an average American home, but I still don't like paying for them. Being in jail is probably better than begging on the streets, only eating once or twice a week. Prisoners need to contribute to society somehow, or be executed (if the crime is that bad; if not, then, well, I'll have to think about that and post it when I'm less tired).

[kubrickfan]

Why not just turn the prison into a 'last man standing' match. We'd quell the inmate population and, everybody on death row would get their sentence shortened (To what I don't know. :thinking:), except for that one lucky Bastard who lives. :undecided:

But, yes, medical experimentation is a fantastic idea! Put it on a bill, I'll vote for it. Give me a petition, I'll sign it. But what I won't do is play guiena pig. Let them do that. (And please, I don't want to lugged into a: 'how important is a life is' debate.)

[Trivani]

We Americans believe in individual rights and believe that cruel and unusual punishment is wrong. Once you disregard the rights of one group of people, no matter how bad they are, you start down a slippery slope where the innocent have to be afraid for their well-being. Go back to China you communist bastards!!!

That and:
You guys have far more faith in government bureaucracy than I do.

[xtremegeek]

No matter what hospital I walk into to install clinical systems, I am required to have random drug tests; have an annual TB skin test; have my immunization records checked and just this year I had to have my blood drawn to verify some vaccinations. Why should a hardened criminal be treated any differently? I think we should be checking their blood, urine and brains, all in the name of prevention. I'm not asking to treat them any differently than I am being treated.

[Karamazov]

I think our current policy on rehabilitation for convicts to try an reintegrate into society, by learning a particular trade or craft, and they're being put to use for manual labor (among other things) is good enough, though it can be expanded.

No matter who that individual may be, human experimentation has largely been cast out for being cruel and unusual, as other have pointed out.

[xtremegeek]

I think our current policy on rehabilitation for convicts to try an reintegrate into society, by learning a particular trade or craft, and they're being put to use for manual labor (among other things) is good enough, though it can be expanded.

No matter who that individual may be, human experimentation has largely been cast out for being cruel and unusual, as other have pointed out.

If we can't study them, how will we ever learn? Why is studying them perceived as worse than the death penalty? It's ok to kill them for their crimes, but it's not ok to study them?

Making them do work that they don't want to do could also be viewed as cruel and unusual punishment. Perhaps, we should give the criminals a choice - a) sign up for a work detail or, b) sign up for medical detail or, c) die.

[Karamazov]

If we can't study them, how will we ever learn? Why is studying them perceived as worse than the death penalty? It's ok to kill them for their crimes, but it's not ok to study them?

Making them do work that they don't want to do could also be viewed as cruel and unusual punishment. Perhaps, we should give the criminals a choice - a) sign up for a work detail or, b) sign up for medical detail or, c) die.

Uh, yeah, we've already tried that with unethical practices in Psychiatric Wards during the 50's. They yielded nothing valuable or conclusive.

Many manual labor programs today, with the exception of some states reinstitution of compulsory labor, are already voluntary and are considered advantageous for prisoners, who are allowed to leave a far more hostile environment.

Forensics has been far more fruitful in its findings, than what any draconian policy may produce. Even how capital punishment has been implemented in America is being examined, after reports of the procedures in how the chemicals are to be injected (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), are being botched.

[xtremegeek]

Whether I agree with the death penalty or not (and I don't), I am not convinced that there will be a cultural shift about the death penalty in the US. And what I find most ironic is this, the most staunch supporters of the death penalty are the "Pro Life" people.

We have not proven that the death penalty works. We have not proven that psychiatric care works. We have not proven that work detail works. So where is the middle ground?

[Karamazov]

Whether I agree with the death penalty or not (and I don't), I am not convinced that there will be a cultural shift about the death penalty in the US. And what I find most ironic is this, the most staunch supporters of the death penalty are the "Pro Life" people.

We have not proven that the death penalty works. We have not proven that psychiatric care works. We have not proven that work detail works. So where is the middle ground?

Actually, it has been proven that Capital Punishment doesn't work, so far as the bigger picture is concerned. Even the inverse has been found to appear in states where the death penalty is implemented more routinely. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Rational Choice theory has been the most popular in America, since the Regan years. Basically, all criminals all make choices and must suffer the consequences; the punishment must be swift and severe, and death penalty should always be available (contrary to what classical rational theorists believed, which were staunchly anti-death penalty) Yet, this rationale begs the question on numerous fronts. Not to mention, the contradictory stances of people who are supposedly pro-life, as you have observed. Why already born, sentient mammals are on a lower scale, compared to dependent, semi-human parasites, I'll never know.

Ethics will always be an issue, but If you're more concerned with it's practicality, then no; the cons outweigh the pros, both socially and economically.

Anyway, I think we should save the death penalty debate for another time.

[Dreamer]

Pros:- The dehumanization process would certainly be an interesting deterrent(if televised,it becomes even better).

Cons:-same as with death penalty, an innocent person does not deserve this kind of treatment.

[ScottH]

Very true! The mental stability of the prisoner does need to be considered, especially if a reward system is in place.

Now, would your opinion be influenced if the prisoners weren’t serving life sentences, but already on death row? Are prisoners who have been proven guilty and are scheduled for execution more suitable candidates?

I would say it's more about the prisoner's "state of mind" and "status" than it is necessarily about "mental stability." Any rational, stable person can succumb to the reality of their position.

But, my answer is no, my opinion would not be influenced if the prisoners were on death row.

Admittedly, this gets rather gray. Once a person is sentenced to death, "why not" let them engage into agreements and make decisions for themselves.

But, the weight of the situation diminishes the person's ability to make good decisions in their best interest, and I continue to believe we should protect them. Prisoners of war are lead to believe that giving up secrets is the only way to survive or avoid torture; some sex victims are led to believe compliance is the path to safety for themselves or others. This psychological manipulation is no different, IMO.

And, occasionally, people sentenced to death are exonerated :-)

Oh, one last comment: I'm not aware of a legal system on the planet so arrogant as to claim to "prove a person guilty." In the USA, the proper term is "found guilty beyond reasonable doubt," but many disagree on reasonableness.

[Skatt]

It could actually pass as humane if prisoners on death row were given the option to prolong life by submitting to testing. I also think that a lot of prisoners in that position are not going to really be accurate representations of the average human, when it comes to personality side-effects at least. I dunno, the topic is a strange one that I've actually considered before. My views on the prison system are very fiscal as I'm sure most of your's are. I think that if this were allowed, prisons would be cheaper to run because pharmaceuticals would sponsor them for exclusive inmate rights. That part is a plus, but worries me because of the money being freed up to build more prisons and fill them with more non-violent drug offenders.

[zibber]

Perhaps, we should give the criminals a choice - a) sign up for a work detail or, b) sign up for medical detail or, c) die.

Choice?

It could actually pass as humane if prisoners on death row were given the option to prolong life by submitting to testing.

Option?

You all make it sound so nice, like we're asking prisoners to choose between equal alternatives. I don't think so.

Prisoners need to contribute to society somehow, or be executed

Wow, that's a hefty assumption right there. I'd like to see you elaborate on that.

[rewhu]

I am so glad I started this thread. Every post has been very interesting! Thank you all for participating in the debate.

In general, there is a reason why life sentence exists. Even the worst monsters among humans, who have done the worst of crimes, are still humans, who have their own official rights and dignity in front of the law, and they just pay their duty with the sentence they serve. No, they will never be free, no matter how changed they are in some years, but a person there could still write a revolutionary book, or create something else, to leave to humanity. While alive, these people are still people, and not just meat under the knife.

Yes, I've considered this. Most people might agree that a "monster" does still deserve to be treated like a human. And the "what ifs" can be mind-boggling. What if an innocent person dies? What if the testing concludes nothing of consequence? I don't have the answers, but I do enjoy speculating.

Why not just turn the prison into a 'last man standing' match. We'd quell the inmate population and, everybody on death row would get their sentence shortened (To what I don't know. :thinking:), except for that one lucky Bastard who lives. :undecided:

LOL!!!

I think our current policy on rehabilitation for convicts to try an reintegrate into society, by learning a particular trade or craft, and they're being put to use for manual labor (among other things) is good enough, though it can be expanded.

Agreed. I definitely think there's room for improvement in criminal rehabilitation.

I think that if this were allowed, prisons would be cheaper to run because pharmaceuticals would sponsor them for exclusive inmate rights.

Privately run prisons? I read a book about that once. The author speculated about privatized prisons and police forces, and whether or not pharmaceutical companies would go around arresting innocent people to increase their prison populations, which of course were used as test subjects.

[Josh]

I think our current policy on rehabilitation for convicts to try an reintegrate into society, by learning a particular trade or craft, and they're being put to use for manual labor (among other things) is good enough, though it can be expanded.

The only thing convicts learn in prison is how to be better criminals.

[Karamazov]

The only thing convicts learn in prison is how to be better criminals.

What can I say? It's unavoidable. People will always adapt to new circumstances and devise even more creative ways to overcome their obstacles. The hard-liners will always love jail and never change, but it's important nonetheless to have an outlet for those who want to change. That's why, so far as criminology is concerned, I've always been a strong proponent of prison reform.

A fairly large portion of the problem with crime in America today is strongly rooted in prisons, where it has become a hotbed for criminal activity that correlates directly outside of the prison itself.

It's a complex issue, but I think If people are open to some new ideas, maybe we'll be able to mitigate the problem, somewhat. I'll have to think on it in the meantime.

[invicta]

In the case of violent criminals, I don't see how we can condemn them for indifferent cruelty all the while using them in an cruel and indifferent manner. Yes, there is the argument that the cruelty of the good guys, i.e. us are doing it for a greater benefit. I don't think that the ends justify the means when it comes to cruelty against another.

In the case of nonviolent criminals, such as drug violations, or other crimes of poverty, I think it's abhorrent to even think about further dehumanizing these people.

[blueback]

In the case of nonviolent criminals, such as drug violations, or other crimes of poverty

Wait, so they committed crimes, but it's the rich people's faults for making them poor?

I'm thinking that corporal punishment is where it's at. If someone breaks a minor-ish law just tie them to a stake and whip them for a while. It's cheap, public, and memorable. It would be a way to give them the opportunity to not err again. If lashes don't work, then send them to prison.

The idea that prisons should be an educational system that will give criminals skills they can use to live a normal life is interesting. On the one hand I don't have a problem with the idea of people learning new and useful things. On the other hand I'm curious how that would actually work in practice. If a prison sentence was, effectively, a reward. . .that could provide the wrong incentive.

If people who were too poor/unmotivated/whatever to pursue a basic skill on their own could commit a crime and get sent to prison where the government gives them a skill, then you are basically telling people who want a skill that they have to commit a crime first. If they don't want the skill, just the crime, then prisons not going to do them any good anyway.

I think prison should suck. If you want to provide government training for the uneducated just do that seperately. Why not have free schools where the government and private charity educate people in some basic skill.

[invicta]

Wait, so they committed crimes, but it's the rich people's faults for making them poor?



Oh no, of course not. Poverty creates desperation, and some crimes, such as trafficking illegal substances in order to make money in a hostile environment, are not on the same level of offense as violent crimes.

[ScottH]

Oh no, of course not. Poverty creates desperation, and some crimes, such as trafficking illegal substances in order to make money in a hostile environment, are not on the same level of offense as violent crimes.

Not quite. Studies from the Depression and other disparate times consistently fail to show a correlation between poverty and most crime.

Actually, most crime is the consequence of:
1) Someone wanting something they don't have/can't do
2) That someone finding a way to make it "ok" for them to take/do it

This applies to drug crimes (lots of easy money), property crimes (theft), even crimes of passion.

In the worst cases, the person makes it "ok" by default because other's don't matter (the sociopath). In the best case, the person makes it "ok" via rationalizations such as "I'm poor, beat down by the man, I have a RIGHT..." or "if I don't sell them drugs, someone else will..." etc.

Dr. Stanton Samenow did work in this area with criminals and developed therapy to teach them to think more rationally; he had statistically significant success. His work is foundational to many State's justice system's.

Criminals have been studied; there's really nothing remarkable about them.

[invicta]

Good response. Those are interesting ideas. I was just thinking the other day about how people are often nicer to each other when times are harder.

I actually have no problem with breaking the law re: drugs as I find that law a stupid law, as are any laws governing crimes between consenting adults. It has been my observation that poverty-stricken areas see more drug use and trafficking, but I simply do not consider this a heinous crime.

No, I don't think that poverty CAUSES drug crimes, or any crime, but I do think that there is more acceptance of illegal activities among those who do not enjoy prosperity by the mechanisms of our social structures and laws. And I can accept this without judgment when it comes to crimes of consent.

I think that all humans are in a sense above the law, as humans made the laws. So practicing cruelty against prisoners is an affront to me on a human level.

[Josh]

Wait, so they committed crimes, but it's the rich people's faults for making them poor?
Just because something is a crime by law doesn't mean it's immoral or should be considered as such. Who decided that selling and using alcohol and tobacco which kills half a million a year from health consequences alone should be legal but marijuana (the vast majority of drug arrests) not? Oh thats right, fear mongering directed at immigrants and minorites, blatantly false propoganda, and Hearst who greedily didn't want competition in the paper making industry. Why are crack cocaine sentences so much worse than powder? Because it directly correlates to class. Cmon guys think for yourselves a bit here. You're advocating curing the headache by cutting off the head, but after all this is what keeps the money coming to the pockets of the hypocritical moral crusaders.

Oh no, of course not. Poverty creates desperation, and some crimes, such as trafficking illegal substances in order to make money in a hostile environment, are not on the same level of offense as violent crimes.

Nice post invicta, the only rational one. Many people in poor areas have the choice of minimum wage or crime. Some of these high schools have a 30% graduation rate, so some young adults can't even get jobs. Scott and blueback i'm sure you will come back by calling them lazy and saying that was their decision but this is a hopelessly narrow minded view of the subject. It's a combination of the culture that was created over years and years of economic depravity and lack of funding and teachers for the schools. Selling drugs is an ingrained way of life in urban areas, and is often the only way to live above the poverty level for many. That and stealing etc.

To get back on topic the answer is better and more affordable education, more economic opportunity, with an emphasis on rehabilitation for lesser crimes and a more extreme approach to the serious ones.

[ScottH]

I actually have no problem with breaking the law re: drugs as I find that law a stupid law, as are any laws governing crimes between consenting adults. It has been my observation that poverty-stricken areas see more drug use and trafficking, but I simply do not consider this a heinous crime.

I agree with you, both on the value judgment and the observations.


No, I don't think that poverty CAUSES drug crimes, or any crime, but I do think that there is more acceptance of illegal activities among those who do not enjoy prosperity by the mechanisms of our social structures and laws.


True, but it may not be strictly cause and effect. Poorer communities tend to have more kids (which may also re-enforce poverty); they tend to be lacking in things that have been shown to statistically improve IQ--even simple things, like piano's. It could be that the tendency towards irrational thinking that underlies much crime is also a cause of poverty; maybe the thinking processes that makes it ok to steal or deal also make it ok to not show up for work every day and hold stable employment?


I think that all humans are in a sense above the law, as humans made the laws. So practicing cruelty against prisoners is an affront to me on a human level.

I agree. A key point to my argument against prisoner abuse is simply that something as temporal as a political wind can change laws and render whole classes of people as "criminal." I, for one, don't want to some day be "experimented on" because I don't (didn't, or won't) fit the status quo :-)

[blueback]

but I do think that there is more acceptance of illegal activities among those who do not enjoy prosperity by the mechanisms of our social structures and laws.

So. . .are you saying that poor people are more accepting of illegal activities than rich people? Also, are you saying that the only reason some are rich and some are poor is the "mechanisms of our social structures and laws?"

Who decided that selling and using alcohol and tobacco which kills half a million a year from health consequences alone should be legal but marijuana (the vast majority of drug arrests) not? Oh thats right, fear mongering directed at immigrants and minorites, blatantly false propoganda, and Hearst who greedily didn't want competition in the paper making industry.

The paper making industry? What does that have to do with grass and liquor? Are you saying that a person who doesn't want competition is greedy?

I'm with you on the general idea that weed seems to be no worse than tobacco and alcohol.

Why are crack cocaine sentences so much worse than powder? Because it directly correlates to class.

Right. It's got nothing to do with anything else. . .just that it's a way to put more black people in jail. Got anything to back that up?

Cmon guys think for yourselves a bit here.

We are. We just don't all agree with you.

Actually, that's pretty much the definition of "thinking for yourself" isn't it?

Many people in poor areas have the choice of minimum wage or crime.

So. . .they can either live within the law or outside the law. . .huh, their lives sound really difficult. You are advocating for the poor and that's the best you can come up with? The bums in America live better than 25% of the rest of the world. Poverty is relative.

Besides, those aren't their only two choices. For example, they could move to a different area. People don't like hearing about this choice, because it shifts the burden back to them, but it's a perfectly legitimate option.

Some of these high schools have a 30% graduation rate, so some young adults can't even get jobs.

What makes you think there are no jobs for non-high school graduates? There are jobs, they just aren't ones that native-born Americans want to take. There are also GED and high school equivalency awards that they can work on in their spare time. It's harder than not working, but it is an option.

Scott and blueback i'm sure you will come back by calling them lazy and saying that was their decision but this is a hopelessly narrow minded view of the subject. It's a combination of the culture that was created over years and years of economic depravity and lack of funding and teachers for the schools. Selling drugs is an ingrained way of life in urban areas, and is often the only way to live above the poverty level for many. That and stealing etc.

Well, thanks for laying out my argument for me so that you can knock it down easily. That's called strawmanning by the way. Oh, wait, to strawman an argument you have to have at least waited for it to be presented first.

I've never accused a person of being lazy that I didn't know for a fact actually was lazy. However, some people are in situations which require more work, that's just life. If they don't put in the work, they might not be lazy, but they are still not working hard enough. We have not yet figured out how to allow everyone to live a happy, fulfilled life. Some people are going to be born into crappy circumstances and some into great circumstances.

Where every you find yourself, that's where you are. It doesn't do any good to whine that someone else had it easier than you; the universe doesn't care. The problem, as I see it, is the issue of 'needs.' The need for something does not entitle you to it.

To get back on topic the answer is better and more affordable education, more economic opportunity, with an emphasis on rehabilitation for lesser crimes and a more extreme approach to the serious ones.

Okay. Please lay out your plan for a more affordable education system.
Okay. Please lay out your plan for producing more economic opportunity.
Okay. Please lay out your plan for rehabilitation of lesser crimes.
Okay. Please lay out your plan for a more extreme approach to serious crimes.

[invicta]

So. . .are you saying that poor people are more accepting of illegal activities than rich people? Also, are you saying that the only reason some are rich and some are poor is the "mechanisms of our social structures and laws?"

No, and no. Thank you for asking for clarification.

I am saying that people for whom a system isn't working are not as likely to be fully supportive of said system as those for whom it is working. Not necessarily restricted to the subject of poverty per se.

Your second question doesn't seem to reflect anything I've said, so I'll just leave that at "no".

[blueback]

I am saying that people for whom a system isn't working are not as likely to be fully supportive of said system as those for whom it is working. Not necessarily restricted to the subject of poverty per se.

Granted. But are you claiming that their negative behavior is excused by the idea that the system "isn't working for them?"

[invicta]

Granted. But are you claiming that their negative behavior is excused by the idea that the system "isn't working for them?"

I did not state that they should be excused from the processes of the legal system, but that those types of crimes are not on the same level as violent crimes.

[ScottH]

I did not state that they should be excused from the processes of the legal system, but that those types of crimes are not on the same level as violent crimes.

While there has always been a sense that the legal system try's to find "justice" through "balance," by making punishments harsher for crimes that seem worse, it isn't a deterministic feat.

Drug crimes often result in direct death (I distinguish direct from indirect, because many will argue that the violence resulting from the drug trade should be the responsibility of all drug users--these indirect crimes are not what I refer to), and hence could be arguably "amongst the worse."

Yet, most states have "three strike" laws which intend to punish "the worse of the worse" with life imprisonment. In some states, crimes such as "Causing damage to a building that was, or could have been occupied..." are amongst those. By the letter of the law, slip on ice in a parking lot and hit a 1-hour photo booth, and you could receive a "strike" if you are deemed somehow negligent.

The obvious fuziness in the system is why I advocate a baseline minimum of human rights and protection for "offenders." I am, after all, as I'll bet most of you are, an "offender," having smoked pot several times as a teenager, driven drunk at least once, had sex with my ex-wife when she was under 18 and I over, and even stolen a candybar once.

[Josh]

The paper making industry? What does that have to do with grass and liquor? Are you saying that a person who doesn't want competition is greedy?

That would be hemp that Hearst didn't want to compete with, much more affordable and could be sold for much cheaper than his product.

Right. It's got nothing to do with anything else. . .just that it's a way to put more black people in jail. Got anything to back that up?

Exactly. Why would anyone make the same substance in a different form have vastly different penalities unless you were attempting to single out a particular class or race who typically use it? It's how drug prohibition started.

So. . .they can either live within the law or outside the law. . .huh, their lives sound really difficult. You are advocating for the poor and that's the best you can come up with? The bums in America live better than 25% of the rest of the world. Poverty is relative.

Very true but we can certainly do better as the most prosperous country in the world.

Besides, those aren't their only two choices. For example, they could move to a different area. People don't like hearing about this choice, because it shifts the burden back to them, but it's a perfectly legitimate option.

If they can't afford to eat sometimes, how can they afford to move? Even if they could how would it make the situation better?

What makes you think there are no jobs for non-high school graduates? There are jobs, they just aren't ones that native-born Americans want to take. There are also GED and high school equivalency awards that they can work on in their spare time. It's harder than not working, but it is an option.

There are jobs but again not the kind that enable anyone to live above the poverty level. What if they have kids, or what if they're taking care of a sibling cause the parents aren't around and they can't get their GED? It's not their fault, but they're going to grow up and do the same thing to their kids. It's perpetual.

Well, thanks for laying out my argument for me so that you can knock it down easily. That's called strawmanning by the way. Oh, wait, to strawman an argument you have to have at least waited for it to be presented first.

I've never accused a person of being lazy that I didn't know for a fact actually was lazy. However, some people are in situations which require more work, that's just life. If they don't put in the work, they might not be lazy, but they are still not working hard enough. We have not yet figured out how to allow everyone to live a happy, fulfilled life. Some people are going to be born into crappy circumstances and some into great circumstances.

Where every you find yourself, that's where you are. It doesn't do any good to whine that someone else had it easier than you; the universe doesn't care. The problem, as I see it, is the issue of 'needs.' The need for something does not entitle you to it.

I'm aware of all the fallacies in reasoning and i sincerely apologize for jumping to conclusions on that one. I've just heard the "if they'd get off their ass they could work hard and get rich" line too many times when i've had this discussion. That argument i think misses the larger point.

Okay. Please lay out your plan for a more affordable education system.
Okay. Please lay out your plan for producing more economic opportunity.
Okay. Please lay out your plan for rehabilitation of lesser crimes.
Okay. Please lay out your plan for a more extreme approach to serious crimes.

I apologize if this gets a little political.

More affordable education system: An education system that gives teachers additional support in return for accountability if standards are not met, not punishes them as the no child left behind policy does. Better pay for teachers, free public college for those that maintain decent grades paid for by....

Producing more economic opportunity: A tax system that doesn't give breaks to the wealthy and the corporations and companies who ship jobs overseas but taxes them more heavily and puts more money in the pockets of the low and middle class.

Rehabilitation of lesser crimes: First of all decriminalize drugs, use part of the ridiculous amount of money wasted on the failure that is the war on drugs including law enforcement, court costs, and incarceration for treatment programs and again, better education and less propaganda and demonizing.

Extreme approach to serious crimes:
First degree murder: instant death sentence
White collar crimes (most damaging on a wide scale): longer prison sentence
Increase prison sentences on sex crimes and all other violent crimes.
Finally make prison much less cushy than it currently is of course.


Drug crimes often result in direct death (I distinguish direct from indirect, because many will argue that the violence resulting from the drug trade should be the responsibility of all drug users--these indirect crimes are not what I refer to), and hence could be arguably "amongst the worse."

What are you talking about scott, and where are you getting your info from? If you are talking about health consequences of illegal drugs its 10,000 a year, i don't have to tell you the numbers for legal tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs again. If you are talking about drug related crime, a huge, huge majority of it is a result of prohibition and the substance being illegal in the first place, not the drug itself. Simply let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on that.

[ScottH]

What are you talking about scott, and where are you getting your info from? If you are talking about health consequences of illegal drugs its 10,000 a year, i don't have to tell you the numbers for legal tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs again. If you are talking about drug related crime, a huge, huge majority of it is a result of prohibition and the substance being illegal in the first place, not the drug itself. Simply let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on that.

I was responding to the post that I quoted, arguing the subjectivity of a term like "those crimes are not the same level as violent crimes," by pointing out that reasonable people can disagree on the "level" of a crime, and even on what constitutes "violent" crime, and giving at least one example.

It seems from the numbers you quote, that you agree that drugs cause deaths.

A more concrete example of the subjectivity of the topic: Given three mothers who lose teen-aged children to:
1) Drug overdose, where a pusher is caught
2) Shooting during a robbery at a convenience store
3) Murder by an ex-lover

May they all see the relevant crime as violent?

One note... It seems you are arguing something akin to social re-structure with somebody... whereas invicta and I had been talking more about the dangers of broad classification of people as "worthy of medical experimentation" (etc.) via some vague understanding of criminal acts. I haven't been keeping up on your argument.

[invicta]

While there has always been a sense that the legal system try's to find "justice" through "balance," by making punishments harsher for crimes that seem worse, it isn't a deterministic feat.

Drug crimes often result in direct death (I distinguish direct from indirect, because many will argue that the violence resulting from the drug trade should be the responsibility of all drug users--these indirect crimes are not what I refer to), and hence could be arguably "amongst the worse."

Yet, most states have "three strike" laws which intend to punish "the worse of the worse" with life imprisonment. In some states, crimes such as "Causing damage to a building that was, or could have been occupied..." are amongst those. By the letter of the law, slip on ice in a parking lot and hit a 1-hour photo booth, and you could receive a "strike" if you are deemed somehow negligent.

The obvious fuziness in the system is why I advocate a baseline minimum of human rights and protection for "offenders." I am, after all, as I'll bet most of you are, an "offender," having smoked pot several times as a teenager, driven drunk at least once, had sex with my ex-wife when she was under 18 and I over, and even stolen a candybar once.

I agree on the human rights protection for offenders. I agree also that laws very often cross the boundary into the absurd. My position on this is that prisoners should not be used as human test subjects.

I don't agree that outside of the prohibition factor, most drug crimes involve death. Most drug use doesn't even involve death, and the deaths that do occur from accidental overdoses could be prevented if these drugs were standardized. What did you mean by your statement?

[xtremegeek]

I'm an ISTJ, so I need hardcore data before I can process the idea that we have a court system and prison program somewhere (anywhere) in this country that is really working.

'working' definition = no death penalty; residivism rate is low to non-existant; number of violent crimes is consistently below national average. The consistency has to maintain itself for a minimum of 5 years.

[Karamazov]

Not quite. Studies from the Depression and other disparate times consistently fail to show a correlation between poverty and most crime.

Actually, most crime is the consequence of:
1) Someone wanting something they don't have/can't do
2) That someone finding a way to make it "ok" for them to take/do it

This applies to drug crimes (lots of easy money), property crimes (theft), even crimes of passion.

Criminals have been studied; there's really nothing remarkable about them.

Eh, not so sure about your analysis, but I do like where you are going.

Crime is not the direct result of poverty, true, but it's the setbacks and limitations it engenders for every individual. As stated already, poverty is relative, but so is every individual's relation to it and how they respond. The crime that festered when immigrants arrived from Ellis island, wasn't a result of just "needs" and "wants" in and of themselves, but the fact they weren't allowed the same opportunities and fairness like the rest of the population.

The two consequences that are listed are certainly components, apart of a much larger whole concerning the crime. Frankly, the whole "pull up your boot straps, life sucks so stop bitching" philosophy, won't solve anything.

Criminals can be interesting subjects. That's why they're are departments on both the state and federal level concerning psychopaths (serial killers, etc.) ;studying their behaviors that deviate from the norms, in a sociological context.

[ScottH]

Eh, not so sure about your analysis, but I do like where you are going.

Crime is not the direct result of poverty, true, but it's the setbacks and limitations it engenders for every individual. As stated already, poverty is relative, but so is every individual's relation to it and how they respond. The crime that festered when immigrants arrived from Ellis island, wasn't a result of just "needs" and "wants" in and of themselves, but the fact they weren't allowed the same opportunities and fairness like the rest of the population.

The two consequences that are listed are certainly components, apart of a much larger whole concerning the crime. Frankly, the whole "pull up your boot straps, life sucks so stop bitching" philosophy, won't solve anything.

Criminals can be interesting subjects. That's why they're are departments on both the state and federal level concerning psychopaths (serial killers, etc.) ;studying their behaviors that deviate from the norms, in a sociological context.

We agree: there are complicated relationships. Nobody has seriously ever proposed a "smoking gun." At least nobody believable, anyway (some have proffered childhood abuse, poverty, etc... all of which has been shown to be non causal).

To your last paragraph: "Criminals can be interesting...that's why there are departments... concerning psychopaths..." I agree with the interest in psychopaths, but this seems to imply all criminals are sociopaths. That's not true.

[Karamazov]

To your last paragraph: "Criminals can be interesting...that's why there are departments... concerning psychopaths..." I agree with the interest in psychopaths, but this seems to imply all criminals are sociopaths. That's not true.

Yes, I'm aware of that. No one, still, is quite sure how psychopathy manifests itself; not having found that definitive link (biological or otherwise)

[cncracer]

For many years I have debated the following:

Why can’t prisoners, serving life sentences, be used for medical experimentation?

In this scenario the prisoners have been proven 100% guilty in a fair court. There is no chance that they are innocent. They are serving life sentences with no chance of parole. Keep in mind the types of crimes that would warrant a life sentence, the cost of keeping a person in prison, and the number of people serving life sentences. I’m not going to post any numbers because it varies for each country / state. Also consider how testing on living human subjects might change the pharmaceutical industry. What are the moral implications? What are the pros and cons?

I’ve yet to find anyone who would seriously entertain this idea. It just dawned on me that this forum is a perfect place for such a discussion.


I think the jury system is not perfect, and the number of people released due to DNA testing proves that statement. To use the prisoners for test rats would be as bad as the crimes they were convicted of, and as a moral person I would refuse to allow anything I was researching to be used in such a manner. It just sounds too much like the holocaust and testing by German doctors. Totally unacceptable!

[MindOverMatter]

-The Governments to retarded
-No such thing as 100% certain
-We are all human
-unconstitutional
-ect.

But i think that since we are paying for their expences that they should give something back to society while incarcerated.

[PortInStorm]

Oh believe me, there'd be a lot less crime if the punishments were more extreme.
Actually, that is wildly debated simply because the research is not consistent on this idea.

On the whole, we need to dispel a myth here that prisoners are unlike us in every way. They are "a population unto themselves" - a different species. No. ALL of us have had the same kinds of urges but haven't followed through on them. And while I'm not saying environment excuses crimes, we are most likely a selection of middle-to-high socio-economically advantaged individuals here (at least we have an internet connection, most even in our own homes). We have NO IDEA what some of these people have had to go through.

Keeping in mind as well that part of prison's rationale is to keep people from doing these things again so that we don't have to keep pumping millions into prisons! Do we really want MORE bitter, possibly mentally and physical incompacitated wandering around the general population? Even if they stay in forever, some people still love them on the outside, and they will definitely suffer and become bitter etc.

[Antares]

Well, I hate paying for prisoners to sit in a cell too, so why not employ the 'he who shall not work, shall not eat' rule? You work for society as a punishment to make up for your crime as well as pay (to whatever extent possible) the housing, the food and the electricity used on you. Do no work (except for physical conditions), eat nothing (of course, we won't let them starve to death, but they don't need to be too sure of that, and even if they are, starving isn't exactly fun). No being let out to see the sunlight, no parole, no 'leave on good behavior', no entertainment, nothing. Life'll be a drag. Seeing beggars don't get to hang around yet be fed all the time, then why prisoners?

[PortInStorm]

Amen! No problem with that for me. But medical experimentation is a little extreme IMO.