Why is it that a murderer or any other VIOLENT criminal (as in people in jail for rape, murder, assault, etc) can get free health care and a free education, but here I am and others here too who have not commited a violent crime and have to pay for it? How is that fair? Yes, of course a prisoner serving a life sentence who earns a degree in business let's say can't use it ever, but they got it for free! I think if you have murdered someone your human rights should be taken away, you've taken away someone else's after all. Well, I guess as far as health care, if a prisoner gets the flu or something, I guess it does have to be taken care of in some way, but a cavity? Let their teeth rot, they killed someone! And if they want to read or write, sure why not....but a bachelors degree? It's different for criminals who are in jail for drug offenses or other non-violent crimes, b/c even though those jail terms are way too long, they haven't killed or hurt anyone. I don't know how I feel about the death penalty, but I do think if someone is in prison for murder, guilty beyond a shadow of doubt, privilages such as a college education and some health care should be taken away. What do you all think of this? Any thoughts?
I think you've been a little misinformed about how wonderful prison life is. In the county I live in, prisoners have to pay for the medical care they get, and have to make appointments for the doctor when they are seriously ill weeks in advance, and some die from lack of medical attention. And the jails are not packed full of violent criminals. 95% of the inmates in the county I live in are there for drug use. And you know why the state and county jails have so many people in them? Because they receive huge subsidties from the federal government per prisoner per day, that far exceed what it actually costs the state and county to keep them. It's a big, money making businees to keep people in jail, and it's not such a wonderful place. The criminal justice system in America is a big money making business for the state,who couldn't even care less whether those inmates are guilty or innocent. Ronald Reagan said he wanted to see the government run like a profit making business-here it is. If America had a national health insurance system like Canada and other civilized countries, and was more concerned about helping people than to lock people up to make money off of them, you wouldn't have those complaints in the first place.
Thats a very misanthropic point of view. Perhaps next time you have a narrowminded, elitist thought regarding human rights, keep it to yourself. Or at least do your homework.................your post really pisses me off but this is all i'm going to say about it. Live in love systah.
well if they cannot take much benfits in society because of it, what is the problem. its the whole arguament over what is edication for- ready of a career, or just for the ideal of learning and improving ones self. i believe in the latter, so i see no issue here at all. prision in not a nice place, they do not get the freedom to go and sit in a forest, or on a beach. i do not take the acceptance that people are completely 100% naturally evil, so therefore i do not believe that just because of a crime, they should be awfully punished all their life, without any hope like education. to me its an ethical point, if someone is bleeding and hurting, i don't care if the nicest person i have met, or a terrible horrible person, i help, not judge
I did not describe her post as narrow-minded, I described her THOUGHT as narrowminded. I'm not getting into this discussion, her post is full of grammar school generalities, misinformation, and not one single fact to lay creedence to the formulation of her opinion. If you want to defend that type of logic, be my guest, however I do not feel I need to be cordial when dealing with ignorant fools who promote abuse of basic human rights. The whole "eye for an eye" philosophy is carnal, neolithic, and outdated. We as humans have (should have) progressed past this ancient philosophy. Those who abide by it, are without question "narrow-minded" because they cannot see past this. I on the other hand, would be taking a step backwards (closing the scope of ideas) to subscribe to this mentality. What she is advocating, is carnal, brutal, without thought, and not an idea at all but a neolithic instinct.
You're right, I was a bit hasty and rude in my first post. I feel very strongly about human rights and I allowed my own feelings to interfere with the concept of open dialogue.
Whoa....well, really what I was trying to get across, obviously not successfully, is that I don't think all prisoners should be treated like shit. Personally, if someone close to me was murdered, I would have a hard time if the person or persons that commited the crime had the privilege of earning an education and so forth. If they want to read Shakespere or listen to music, let them. But don't hand them free things that people outside of prison must work for and earn. I know that not all prisons allow these types of activities for inmates. I also know that the majority of inmates are non-violent offenders. What made me think of all this was a TV program. A news broadcast special from inside a Level 4 security prison. I was amazed at how much was offered to them, and how the majority were in there for non-violent crimes, such as drug offenses. Some of the ones who were in there for murder acknowledged their crimes and some showed no remorse. Well, anyway I do appreciate everyone's opinions. Please speak your mind, that's what this is for.
Well you all know that I'm going to agree in part with mysterious night. Human Rights.... Murderers, rapists, paedophiles etc have no rights. They abused the human rights of the people they committed crimes against. I'd set light to them and hang them from a tree as a sign to all other potential criminals entering the town, city, village etc just like the good old days. Having said that there are some crimes that are more heinous than others.... Amazingly over here in the uk we have had people put in prison for not paying their council tax. Yet.... a burglar can consistently reoffend and get away with a caution. The council tax system is pathetic anyway. Basically everyone pays a set amount for things such as refuse collection, libraries, police, fire, ambulance etc. What is unfair is that if I live next door to Michael Owen I have to pay the same amount of tax as he does but this is a different subject altogether. I have no time for criminals and what ever rights they feel they might have.
Isn't the idea behind prison rehabilitation. How are you helping them learn from their mistakes by taking everything away? I don't know about you but that wouldn't make me want to be a better person. Peace
Rehabilitation? Not since Ronald Reagan's New America and his hang 'em high mentality. The justice system in America today doesn't even care if those that are convicted are guilty or not, much less rehabilitating them.
What I was always taught was that prison is here to rehabilitate the prisoners. I agree, that has changed entirely and there should be a regression back toward the idea of rehabilitation. Right now you have people going in for a drug sentence (possesion) and coming out knowing way more than that. Think about it, you send an 18 year old to prison for 4 years, well that's the time s/he would have (maybe) been going to college. Prison is now their college.
Exactly. And that's precisely what Ronnie Raygun and the new Republican Party that he shaped wanted. Read my first post on this thread about the new economics of putting people in jail. It's all about money.
In an ideal world the rehabilitation process in prison is a magic idea. In reality there are serial killers, rapists etc that can never be rehabilitated so we keep them alive in nice plush cells talking about their rights not as a prisoner because they aren't prisoners are they. They are mentally ill so they are in an institution, hospital if you like. I met a woman in a pub last night who is a dental nurse for the NHS in Scotland and when she was living in England she was asked to go into Broadmoor Prison (mental institute, home for nutcases, scumbags, murdering pieces of shit) and perform dental care on a guy named Peter Sutcliffe. For all of you outside the UK Peter Sutcliffe is the Yorkshire Ripper (A Jack the Ripper wannabe). He killed innocent women in a brutal fashion. If he has toothache. GOOD. I hope it fucking hurts. She refused to visit him to do the work by the way. As for other criminals. Again in an ideal world rehabilitation would be great but the truth is all criminals learn in prison is to be better criminals. They learn new tricks off each other. Therefore prison is not about rehabilitation its about making the place so goddamned hellish that noone would ever want to go back.
But does having a super hellish prison make people not want to go back or does it make them more careful? Doesn't sending someone to a prison where all they do is sit and think just give them time to figure out where they went wrong last time?
Ok plan B....... build the entrance of the prison on the precipice of a large cliff. Prisoners are given the usual searches and then told "Go through that door there please"..... problem solved as said prisoner plummits to their inevitable death. Its not murder because it was merely suggested that the prisoner should walk through the door.
