Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Do you think that in the Western Societies, the raise of Neo-Liberalism has brought a more punitive approach in the Justice System in recent years?

Do we generally aim to punish more than to rehabilitate? Does prison overcrowding, death penalty, tougher on crime, ''three strikes on you're out'', approaches kind of suggest we have gone more punitive?

Is punishing rather than restoring, something which is inevitable in highly capitalist societies we live in? (ie, does capitalism require 'removal' of anything which stands in the way of its smooth operation, like for example, poor people).

Or do you on the contrary believe that we have gone far more restorative than punitive in recent years.


(people who are not from the west, feel free to say what you think regarding out justice systems and punishment)

Thoughts?

Im pretty sure it's the Neo-Conservativists who want to punish more. At least, I was under the impression.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Do we generally aim to punish more than to rehabilitate?

deja vu! did i inspire someone?

I don't think England's justice system is great, I've never had to deal with it personally, but I will say that I feel it's better than most purely because we don't have the death penalty.

It's not without flaw though, naturally.

-AC

Well, I never saw either as the important part of a justice system. I think the main point is to protect society. And that works either way.

At least where I am from I think they are trying to rehabilitate offenders.

I also don't get how capitalism got into that. It's not that capitalism needs to lock everyone away (especially not poor people..you know, cheap labour).

ok, my answer:

although the prison system was concieved as a means of rehabilitation, its quite obvious that it does just the opposite, at least on the level of state prisons (u.s.).

of coarse ideals are hard if not impossible to reach, but it seems that people are quite content with this failing system and how it goes against the very point in which it was concieved. "good! let him rot" "i hope he gets raped every night" "have fun spooning with bubba" etc. although i am also guilty of feeling pleased by the poetic justice of a rapist getting a force feeding of man juice, i have to admit that its a terrible way to think toward anyone.

the fact is that the ideal of punishment is also difficult if not impossible to reach, especially since this punishment is not even handed and certainly not well placed. the most hardened and violent criminals are basically royalty behind bars...basically rewarded, while the weak (far less hardened and violent) are punished with more cruelty and persistance than any rational person can bear to here, let alone witness. i fail to see any justice in that.

its not that the system has failed...failure is just part of how we as humans progress and learn. what bothers me greatly is the acceptance and celebration of that failure, and the degeneration of our ideals and moral code...and overall logic which goes with it...

The reason people keep endorsing tough punishment policies is that, endictment on our progress as Humans as they are, they actually look better than pretty much everything else we have tried. Our social-based rehabilitation/caring efforts with offenders inevitably fail totally, and get extremely bad press.

Originally posted by PVS
ok, my answer:

although the prison system was concieved as a means of rehabilitation, its quite obvious that it does just the opposite, at least on the level of state prisons (u.s.).

of coarse ideals are hard if not impossible to reach, but it seems that people are quite content with this failing system and how it goes against the very point in which it was concieved. "good! let him rot" "i hope he gets raped every night" "have fun spooning with bubba" etc. although i am also guilty of feeling pleased by the poetic justice of a rapist getting a force feeding of man juice, i have to admit that its a terrible way to think toward anyone.

the fact is that the ideal of punishment is also difficult if not impossible to reach, especially since this punishment is not even handed and certainly not well placed. the most hardened and violent criminals are basically royalty behind bars...basically rewarded, while the weak (far less hardened and violent) are punished with more cruelty and persistance than any rational person can bear to here, let alone witness. i fail to see any justice in that.

its not that the system has failed...failure is just part of how we as humans progress and learn. what bothers me greatly is the acceptance and celebration of that failure, and the degeneration of our ideals and moral code...and overall logic which goes with it...

As far as prison goes, I think you can comftably assume the conditions are no better here in England.

Also, I strongly believe that punishment and the way it is handed out has a lot to do with social class, gender and ethnicity.
But that aside, do you think we should look more towards rehabilitation?

Let me give you an example.

The max security prisons (I siad this in another thread) are in great demand these days. They consist of ONE solitary cell for each individual in which he/she spends 23 hours a day, years at the time, without any reading material, conversation or any GOOD use of his time.

So basically he is technically rotting in there, but he is also being phychilogically damaged, and well..bored. By the time he is left out, he/she has lost the little social skills he/she had, NO way to get back into work, NO skills (considering how high number of prisoners cannot read or write) and no means of reintegrating into society.

Taking a less extreme example, of non max security prison, but just a normal prison - the prisoners are all lumped together in overcrowded prisons, where they are not offered any kind of education or operrtunity to gain skills, so when they go back into society they just re-offend again. Kind of ''revolving doors'' really.


Oh and I forgot to ask in the original post - do you think our societies are more punitive because for the most part general public gives more support to punishment than rehabilitation?
Do you think general public does indeed support punishment over rehabilitation?

Rehabilitation has to go beyond the prison walls to be effective. I feel we are in a society that supports punishment.

"Taking a less extreme example, of non max security prison, but just a normal prison - the prisoners are all lumped together in overcrowded prisons, where they are not offered any kind of education or opportunity to gain skills, so when they go back into society they just re-offend again. Kind of ''revolving doors'' really."

I feel as though there is opportunity in a great many places in prisons. However just like most people unless its spoon fed to them then all of a sudden they are less fortunate. This isn't true for everyone just most everyone thats incarcerated.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

But that aside, do you think we should look more towards rehabilitation?


the way i see it, the system was created as a means of rehabilitation...the very theory it revolves around, however never coming close to meeting. the reason it came about was the hope that execution would no longer be necessary. execution, however motivated by the individual, is rooted in the idea that its for the good of everyone's safety and the ends justify the means and blah blah. point is, there was the supposed moral high ground of "we need to protect the women and children." etc and they really didnt have any other options to keep them restrained.

but now the dilemma. we have a failed prison system not based on a failed theory, but rather an abandoned one: to rehabilitate. its ineffective for rehabilitation as it stands, yet completely effective as a means of restraint.

...but the theory stands, and it is a noble one.

then the alternative: execution, which is no longer a matter of protecting all the innocents, given the option of prison...however it is still effective. as joseph stalin said, "death solves all problems. no man, no problem." but why? why do we non-paranoid-dictators feel the need to kill others and hide behind the law of the land for justification?

the only mentallity it has left to stand on is revenge.

anyway, with that said:
i think the answer is to reinvent the prison system and make it useful. make it punish the hardened criminal with more severity than the common criminals. let there be proper gaurd to prisoner ratio so that there is more control and thus less criminal activity such as murder/rape/drugs etc. allow them education in trades etc. make it as useful as possible.

the other option is to speed up the death penalty so its more of a conveyer belt of death, which seems to be many people's wet dream.
this scares me.




Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh and I forgot to ask in the original post - do you think our societies are more punitive because for the most part general public gives more support to punishment than rehabilitation?
Do you think general public does indeed support punishment over rehabilitation?

i think far too many people get off on revenge...so yes i think much the general public supports it, or else why bother? since it costs the state far more to execute, it would make no sense for them to be so fiscally irresponsible unless the public demanded it....well thats different. the public demands blood, they vote for blood, and they are given blood.

makes me wonder why they dont just get it over with and start feeding prisoners to the lions in front of a packed stadium audience.

I think PVS is right. I think all punishment is meant as a form of rehabilitation. I wasn't put in the corner when I was a kid because my mother wanted to be mean, she did it to prevent me from repeating the behavior that got me put there.

But, I think someone said this earlier in the thread, the element of society that finds itself in your typical prison influences others in prison and it ends up reinforcing the bahavior that got them put in prison in the first place.

At this point, the only rehabilitation factor that would be effective in prison is if white collar criminals were placed in jail alongside serial rapists and other violent criminals.

And I'm not sure where the equation of liberalism and punishment is formulated. In this country, it's the conservatives that support punishment and the liberals who support touchy-feely, proactive rehabilitation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
so don't get how capitalism got into that. It's not that capitalism needs to lock everyone away (especially not poor people..you know, cheap labour).

I could go Marx&ENgels on you and the entire concept of PROPERTY! What is the reason for example, that violent crimes are often punished far less harshly than, say, theft and robbery?

Originally posted by PVS
although i am also guilty of feeling pleased by the poetic justice of a rapist getting a force feeding of man juice, i have to admit that its a terrible way to think toward anyone.


Well, then... What is it about "poetic justice" that appeals to you, PVS?
Perhaps we'd be getting somewhere, if society wasn't so set on portraying the victims as VICTIMS, as people who have been "hit" by crime, and are completely unable to move beyond their status as "victims"??
A person who has committed a crime against you, will hold powre over you, as LONG as you view yourself as a victim.

Originally posted by The Omega

Well, then... What is it about "poetic justice" that appeals to you, PVS?

its a knee jerk feeling. first you feel anger over what they've done, then hear news of the agony that will likely be done to them, then its "well GOOD!!!".

this however does not appeal to me when properly thought through without passion distorting any sense of justice. i have to come to the conclusion that 'punishment', as the current prison system defines it, is a crock which rewards the 'creme de la creme' of societies purest excrament while punishing all others down the ladder more and more harshly depending on how much of hardened criminals they are not.

so...if their brand of justice wasnt served ass backwards, and their regement was more productive giving people a chance to better themselves, even if there is no chance of getting out...then i'm for that. if its just carryiong out 'gods judgement' and even creating a concrete dungeon to simulate hell on earth...i am horrified by it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I also don't get how capitalism got into that. It's not that capitalism needs to lock everyone away (especially not poor people..you know, cheap labour).

Of course it does.

Tell me last time you heard a Corporate manager who conciously manufactured a product he knew will injure and kill people, (and who's product has done exactly that), get thrown in prison?

Besides, as The Omega said, Marx's theory on owning of the propery.

Punishment has ALWAYS been less inflicted on those with higher social status.

Wrong lil...very wrong. When you said "Punishment has ALWAYS been less inflicted on those with higher social status." you have to remenber Enron executives who cheated and exploited their workers. They're now facing a court of law.

As for Marx theory....is just a theory. Would Marx have given his personal property to others? No he didn't...instead he kept borrowing money from Engels.

They are facing a court law. That is it. They will get a sentance, and even if they do have to do time, they will do it in an 'open prison'. Its been done before.

And they only EXPLOITED workers. Ford killed 700 people conciously manufacturing cars with a fault, and everyone knows it - yet I don't see him being in electric chair.

And punishment has always been less inflicted on those with status. Even when execution had to historically occur, people with higher status were beheaded rather than hunged, they paid fines rather than spend time in prison, and more recently, they pay good lawyer to ''make it go away''.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Wrong lil...very wrong. When you said "Punishment has ALWAYS been less inflicted on those with higher social status." you have to remenber Enron executives who cheated and exploited their workers. They're now facing a court of law.

She said "less inflicted"...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As for Marx theory....is just a theory. Would Marx have given his personal property to others? No he didn't...instead he kept borrowing money from Engels.

Since you haven't READ it, please don't talk nonsense like that.
Marx didn't exactly live in an era where he could give his stuff away and survive, did he? Read Marx and Engel's theory, then talk about it...
(-Bangs head into nearest wall-)

Originally posted by The Omega
She said "less inflicted"...



Since you haven't READ it, please don't talk nonsense like that.
Marx didn't exactly live in an era where he could give his stuff away and survive, did he? Read Marx and Engel's theory, then talk about it...
(-Bangs head into nearest wall-)

Thank you for assuming I haven't read Marx bio or his works The Omega. Keep banging your head since you assume things about others. Obviously you missed the point I was trying to make. Which is Marx ideas were never apply to himself. Yes, I know he was sick and how he died and poverty and etc...yet as a youth he kept borrowing money from Engels. Thank you again.

marx's ideal only applied to a sovereign population/state...i dont know maybe he could have applied it to his town as a microcosm...but to apply it to only himself is pointless and proves nothing for or against the theory.

Originally posted by sithsaber408


Food for thought.

no, its dupe-topic homophobic literal excrement.
maybe you should just quit dragging your obsession with gay people into every topic. kthxbye

Just find it funny how your logic only works for SOME of your arguments.

(but NEVER for mine.)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Totally off-topic, but:

I've said just as much in other threads, relating to both pedophilia(both gay and straight) and homosexuality in general.

At that time I was met with hostility, as such things are genetic, born into people, and not learned, through life's experiences.

Now if improper influence in a person's developmental years can make them sexually attracted to young children/pre-teens, then how can you say that NO improper influence in a person's developmental years can make them sexually attracted to a person of the same sex?


Both are learned/influenced sexual preferences, and not nature's intention for sex, clearly, as biology would show that a young boy or girl is not developed enough to have sexual intercourse, nor are peoples bodies TRULY compatable to have sex with sombody of the same gender.



Food for thought.

Yes it is, and Im going to stop the conversation here.

There is already a thread for this, so please use it.

Yes'm.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I've said just as much in other threads, relating to both pedophilia(both gay and straight) and homosexuality in general.

At that time I was met with hostility, as such things are genetic, born into people, and not learned, through life's experiences.



That is blatant bullsh*t. NO ONE said that beastiality or pedophilia were genetic traits. That's crap.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Do you think that in the Western Societies, the raise of Neo-Liberalism has brought a more punitive approach in the Justice System in recent years?

Do we generally aim to punish more than to rehabilitate? Does prison overcrowding, death penalty, tougher on crime, ''three strikes on you're out'', approaches kind of suggest we have gone more punitive?

Is punishing rather than restoring, something which is inevitable in highly capitalist societies we live in? (ie, does capitalism require 'removal' of anything which stands in the way of its smooth operation, like for example, poor people).

Or do you on the contrary believe that we have gone far more restorative than punitive in recent years.


(people who are not from the west, feel free to say what you think regarding out justice systems and punishment)

Thoughts?

Capitalism - despite having many positive affects - does also create a will for more, aka 'greed'. Some people have the facilities - both mental and physical - to benefit from such a system. However, there are many people who are unable to do so, whether this is through a resistance to it, or an inability to succeed in it.

This creates a group of outsiders within a relentlessly powerful system. They have the choice to live beyond it, or react to it. The people who choose to live beyond it are few and far between, but there are people who manage to succeed. For the most part, the struggle and effort it would take to distance themselves from the system would denote that these people are happy to do this. The other group lack the will or inclination to follow a different path, so they are stuck in the system, but
are without the means to survive in it efficiently. I think this is what creates the criminal mentality: A frustrating inability to prosper or work within it leaves them with no choice but to rebel against it.

I'm not saying these people are without blame, and there are undoubtably a great many people who choose crime as an easy solution, but something must have happened to them for them to behave in such a way. The majority of the people in the world are, on a personal level, good people who are not out to hurt or affect anyone else in a detrimental manner. Therefore, an application of Occam's Razor would support the supposition that 'bad people' have had 'bad' things happen to them.

Believing that this disposition to creating friction within the system of capitalism can be atoned through education is the only positive way a humanistic society can behave. The ideal of believing in redemption is the only civilised way of attending to this problem. Although, it must be coupled with a punishment that is appropriate to the crime.

For example, on the most basic level, any way you look at capital punishment it shows itself to be barbaric and hypocritical. If the killing of another person is so atrocious, how can it be equated by the killing of another? If this is the message that is given to the kind of people who entertain such thoughts, then it is little surprise that they are unable to function in a civil society.

Therefore, the key is initial education and at least an attempt at some sort of equality of living. If this fails, or is unavailable, then rehabilitation and punishment are dealt. However, the punishment must offer a means of redemption otherwise it's a waste of a life. Do I need to say that no life shoud be wasted? OK, I just did.

Personally I feel that Judical systems are ruled by back-handing and friends of friends who know a friend that can keep the lid on things.

No matter what impression they may appear to give you, its the way it works and if you dont have either of those, you are the mercy of the 'system'

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Of course it does.

Tell me last time you heard a Corporate manager who conciously manufactured a product he knew will injure and kill people, (and who's product has done exactly that), get thrown in prison?

Besides, as The Omega said, Marx's theory on owning of the propery.

Punishment has ALWAYS been less inflicted on those with higher social status.

Well, that is quite the opposite of what you said to begin with though: "(ie, does capitalism require 'removal' of anything which stands in the way of its smooth operation, like for example, poor people)."

And that's not true, poor people do not concern capitalism, murderers and rapist totally don't...so why lock them away? Only to protect society, not the system.

Originally posted by The Omega
I could go Marx&ENgels on you and the entire concept of PROPERTY! What is the reason for example, that violent crimes are often punished far less harshly than, say, theft and robbery?

I guess because our society values property quite a bit,
Although I don't know about that what violent crimes are you referring to?