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

Those who were around, say 3 years ago would remember me opening a thread about prisons and the morality of them.

Most people went on to say they're necessary and I remember virtually everyone I talked to about the horrors or prisons laughing at me.

My father has a degree in criminology and used to work as a safety warden, it's about as close to a policeman as you can get, and I'd remember him telling me about how locking people up with others doesn't work, and it's completely true.

We've been treating violent offenders as evil people, doing whatever we can to torture them, killing them in some places of the world and it doesn't work.

Anyway. Everything you need to know about James Gilligan is here: http://www.apbspeakers.com/speaker/james-gilligan

Here's an article he wrote: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_4_70/ai_112943739/

And here's a video of the man himself of how to solve violence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0GYqFR_9Lw

It's so obvious, yet, everyone believes the lie that anyone who does anything destructive is an evil person, as we see it on the news all the time.

I suggest reading that article and watching other videos by him. I may also revive my prison thread.

did I recommend Skinner's work on prisons later in his life when you last posted on the issue?

I'm not sure, if so, I'm sorry I haven't read it.

you would like it

Skinner is a weirdo, but had a lot of interesting ideas

Originally posted by inimalist
you would like it

Skinner is a weirdo, but had a lot of interesting ideas Ha, sounds like me tbh.

would you raise your child in a small box?

http://www.sgwiki.com/images/9/9d/Skinnerbox.jpg

No, if I had a child, I think I'd treat it like my best friend and would always stay in close proximity with it.

I recall laughing off a lot of your ideas. I even remember this one. In most cases, I actually came to agree with you bit by bit as I became more educated. This one definitely has my vote.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I recall laughing off a lot of your ideas. I even remember this one. In most cases, I actually came to agree with you bit by bit as I became more educated. This one definitely has my vote. That's going straight in the sig.

Last edited has had it's time.

Edit: Quote's too long.

This guy figured out that taunting and humiliating people has a tenancy to make them violent toward you?

How is this new information?

Originally posted by TacDavey
This guy figured out that taunting and humiliating people has a tenancy to make them violent toward you?

How is this new information? Not a tendency (I think that's what you meant), a root cause, which is different.

The point is babies aren't born violent (unless some prenatal syndrome causes them to be), it's learnt by the human as a means of survival. Even people with "violent genes" don't necessarily become genetic and those without "violent genes" do.

Also, Gilligan is offering real solutions to stop violence, not throw em in a cell and hope they calm down for 20 years.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not a tendency (I think that's what you meant), a root cause, which is different.

The point is babies aren't born violent (unless some prenatal syndrome causes them to be), it's learnt by the human as a means of survival. Even people with "violent genes" don't necessarily become genetic and those without "violent genes" do.

Also, Gilligan is offering real solutions to stop violence, not throw em in a cell and hope they calm down for 20 years.

Well, it isn't that different. The basic idea is that taunting people makes people angry and angry people are more likely to punch you in the face.

I missed the solution. Knowing that humiliation leads to violence, how does he propose to stop people from being violent?

I argee that prisons are what alot of people advoid going to by hearing so many horrible stories about them. But if they want to lock all the bad people together what do you expected?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, it isn't that different. The basic idea is that taunting people makes people angry and angry people are more likely to punch you in the face.

I missed the solution. Knowing that humiliation leads to violence, how does he propose to stop people from being violent? I think the inability to control emotions (root cause or tendency, whatever) such as anger is usually a form of weakness, not of evil. This is also not new information, as you will no doubt notice. It is, in fact, so old that one would wonder why Lord XYZ's thread wasn't a topic of discussion two centuries ago. It has yet to be "popularized. Personally, I think it's because people prefer to satisfy their sense of anger against criminals rather than simply treat the root problem. If so, it makes the general population guilty of the same "emotion over logic" attitude as the prison population.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I think the inability to control emotions (root cause or tendency, whatever) such as anger is usually a form of weakness, not of evil. This is also not new information, as you will no doubt notice. It is, in fact, so old that one would wonder why Lord XYZ's thread wasn't a topic of discussion two centuries ago. It has yet to be "popularized. Personally, I think it's because people prefer to satisfy their sense of anger against criminals rather than simply treat the root problem. If so, it makes the general population guilty of the same "emotion over logic" attitude as the prison population.

But what is this "treatment" you are talking about? You can't very well get people to stop humiliating or taunting each other. And what are we suppose to do with them after they commit murder?

Originally posted by TacDavey
But what is this "treatment" you are talking about? You can't very well get people to stop humiliating or taunting each other. And what are we suppose to do with them after they commit murder? There are actually rehabilitation clinics in the world. Norway's prisons are like that, and Gilligan talks about a programme where some violent people have been sent to a non-violent society to learn non-violent ways.

Quark is right, none of this is new, but Gilligan has strong evidence to support this position. In England we had a Geordie called Raul Maut a few months ago that broke free from jail. This guy was a former bouncer, came from domestic violence, 6'6, huge guy with a gun and scared even the police, and had a vendetta against society. His best friend was a alcoholic mentally unstable former footballer. If his childhood was violent, and his job was violent, then it's natural to assume he would turn that abuse outward against his environment.

Gilligan's subjects were the same. When a person is so deprived of human compassion they become hard criminals.

But are the genes the ones causing the violence? I don't think so. These types of people turn up everywhere, the only connection is the unequal environment, and the more inequality in the country, the greater the populous.

Originally posted by lord xyz
There are actually rehabilitation clinics in the world. Norway's prisons are like that, and Gilligan talks about a programme where some violent people have been sent to a non-violent society to learn non-violent ways.

Quark is right, none of this is new, but Gilligan has strong evidence to support this position. In England we had a Geordie called Raul Maut a few months ago that broke free from jail. This guy was a former bouncer, came from domestic violence, 6'6, huge guy with a gun and scared even the police, and had a vendetta against society. His best friend was a alcoholic mentally unstable former footballer. If his childhood was violent, and his job was violent, then it's natural to assume he would turn that abuse outward against his environment.

Gilligan's subjects were the same. When a person is so deprived of human compassion they become hard criminals.

But are the genes the ones causing the violence? I don't think so. These types of people turn up everywhere, the only connection is the unequal environment, and the more inequality in the country, the greater the populous.

So we send them to a "non-violent" society? What does that mean? We have a camp or something set up where everyone is nice? We would have to at least have guards posted to keep them there, and that is still a "violent" environment, at least potentially.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So we send them to a "non-violent" society? What does that mean? We have a camp or something set up where everyone is nice? We would have to at least have guards posted to keep them there, and that is still a "violent" environment, at least potentially. It means we place them in an environment that makes reform easier, rather than harder. I'm honestly confused at how you are confused.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So we send them to a "non-violent" society? What does that mean? We have a camp or something set up where everyone is nice? We would have to at least have guards posted to keep them there, and that is still a "violent" environment, at least potentially.

have you seen The Wire?

Originally posted by Quark_666
It means we place them in an environment that makes reform easier, rather than harder. I'm honestly confused at how you are confused.

I see the thought process, I'm wondering what this "environment that makes reform easier" is. There are already programs out there that try to "reach out" to criminals in prison. It sounds like the idea is to not send criminals to prison, so where?

Originally posted by inimalist
have you seen The Wire?

No, I haven't.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, I haven't.

1) greatest television show ever. Not just my opinion either, it stands as one of the most classic shows, period, for a huge number of reasons. The creator, David Simon, has done other things with the highest of critical acclaim, namely, because of his attention to realism and letting people tell their own narratives. ie, he is amazing at telling stories, at making you see through people's eyes, etc. Outside of any type of debate, I can't recommend it highly enough, and if you need help finding it, *cough*, let me know.

2) in, iirc, the fourth season, the show focuses on the school system in Baltimore, sort of as a microcosm for education in poor urban areas across America. In it, children who are the offspring of drug dealers, children with excessive behavioural problems, things like that, are given an opportunity to be put in a special class. Instead of focusing on learning multiplication or whatever, these students focus on basic socialization in a healthy manner. There are still police officers present (these are problem youth in inner cities, some of them involved in drug dealing themselves) and are encouraged to use the experiences and knowledge they have gained from their life to accomplish goals. This is what is meant by an environment that makes reform easier. It doesn't mean "summer camp", it means changing the environment so that the people we are trying to rehabilitate can use their skills to have positive interactions with others, and work together in socially constructive ways, a way for these people to see themselves as belonging to a larger community and removing the impetus to just react against authority.

xyz and myself disagree about whether this would help everyone, but seriously, the evidence has been there since at least the 50s that these types of policies are much more effective at making what might be violent or "at risk" individuals feel as though they want to participate in society as positive members. At the very least, it teaches them more appropriate ways to channel their aggression and energy.

I'm with Quark here though, how is this confusing?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I see the thought process, I'm wondering what this "environment that makes reform easier" is. There are already programs out there that try to "reach out" to criminals in prison. It sounds like the idea is to not send criminals to prison, so where? If you believe the current prison environment is the best that can or ought to be done, I recommend you look up the Stanford prisoner / guard experiment. If you feel obligated to call it something other than prison just because the living environment has been improved, I have to wonder if perhaps you view the function of prison to be something more brutal than mere containment, and if so, wow. I don't even know where to start.

Originally posted by Quark_666
If you believe the current prison environment is the best that can or ought to be done, I recommend you look up the Stanford prisoner / guard experiment. If you feel obligated to call it something other than prison just because the living environment has been improved, I have to wonder if perhaps you view the function of prison to be something more brutal than mere containment, and if so, wow. I don't even know where to start.

hey, punishing people severely for their crimes is the christian way

Originally posted by inimalist
1) greatest television show ever. Not just my opinion either, it stands as one of the most classic shows, period, for a huge number of reasons. The creator, David Simon, has done other things with the highest of critical acclaim, namely, because of his attention to realism and letting people tell their own narratives. ie, he is amazing at telling stories, at making you see through people's eyes, etc. Outside of any type of debate, I can't recommend it highly enough, and if you need help finding it, *cough*, let me know.

I'll see if it's on Netflix.

Originally posted by inimalist
2) in, iirc, the fourth season, the show focuses on the school system in Baltimore, sort of as a microcosm for education in poor urban areas across America. In it, children who are the offspring of drug dealers, children with excessive behavioural problems, things like that, are given an opportunity to be put in a special class. Instead of focusing on learning multiplication or whatever, these students focus on basic socialization in a healthy manner. There are still police officers present (these are problem youth in inner cities, some of them involved in drug dealing themselves) and are encouraged to use the experiences and knowledge they have gained from their life to accomplish goals. This is what is meant by an environment that makes reform easier. It doesn't mean "summer camp", it means changing the environment so that the people we are trying to rehabilitate can use their skills to have positive interactions with others, and work together in socially constructive ways, a way for these people to see themselves as belonging to a larger community and removing the impetus to just react against authority.

xyz and myself disagree about whether this would help everyone, but seriously, the evidence has been there since at least the 50s that these types of policies are much more effective at making what might be violent or "at risk" individuals feel as though they want to participate in society as positive members. At the very least, it teaches them more appropriate ways to channel their aggression and energy.

I'm with Quark here though, how is this confusing?

That's a school system with kids, but what about murderers? I mean, adults? I'm still confused as to where they go. Are we still letting them roam around free, just in an "environment" we set up for them? Or are we talking about a special facility, kinda like prison, except they do "rehabilitation exercises" or something, and it's better furnished.

Originally posted by Quark_666
If you believe the current prison environment is the best that can or ought to be done, I recommend you look up the Stanford prisoner / guard experiment. If you feel obligated to call it something other than prison just because the living environment has been improved, I have to wonder if perhaps you view the function of prison to be something more brutal than mere containment, and if so, wow. I don't even know where to start.

I'm wondering if you are talking about forming a group to go to prisons and work with the criminals, or if we are talking about making a special facility and hiring special staff to work with criminals?

To help with the confusion, let's say we have a guy who kills someone. He then gets arrested. What happens to him now? Where does he go, what does he do?

Originally posted by inimalist
hey, punishing people severely for their crimes is the christian way

glare

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's a school system with kids, but what about murderers? I mean, adults? I'm still confused as to where they go. Are we still letting them roam around free, just in an "environment" we set up for them? Or are we talking about a special facility, kinda like prison, except they do "rehabilitation exercises" or something, and it's better furnished.

Originally posted by inimalist
these students criminals focus on basic socialization in a healthy manner. There are still police officers present... and are encouraged to use their experiences and knowledge they have gained from their life to accomplish goals. This is what is meant by an environment that makes reform easier. It doesn't mean "summer camp", it means changing the environment so that the people we are trying to rehabilitate can use their skills to have positive interactions with others, and work together in socially constructive ways, a way for these people to see themselves as belonging to a larger community and removing the impetus to just react against authority.

which part is unclear?

Originally posted by inimalist
which part is unclear?

The location mostly. That's all I've been asking this whole time. Is this a program that you want to take place in prisons? Or are we talking about building special facilities to accommodate this program?

And what kind of facility would it be? I'm not sure I'm down with spending a bunch of money to build a comfy resort for murderers.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm wondering if you are talking about forming a group to go to prisons and work with the criminals, or if we are talking about making a special facility and hiring special staff to work with criminals? To tell the truth, I know of prisons that use both methods, although they are more commonly used in jails. Both are strongly preferable to traditional prisoner-guard systems. Neither is effective against psychopathy, but both are effective against anti-social personality disorder. Misanthropy and cynicism are normal characteristics of criminals and law abiding citizens alike, but Gilligan's research suggests that they fuel the crimes of many moderate felons and as a general rule can be coped with through proper counselling.

Originally posted by TacDavey
To help with the confusion, let's say we have a guy who kills someone. He then gets arrested. What happens to him now? Where does he go, what does he do? For the most part, "killers" are imprisoned temporarily and released back into society. At the time of release, they are either more dangerous or more benign then they were at the time of their original imprisonment. Their environment within prison is typically a strong influence on their psychological state.

"Kills someone" includes 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The location mostly. That's all I've been asking this whole time. Is this a program that you want to take place in prisons? Or are we talking about building special facilities to accommodate this program?

And what kind of facility would it be? I'm not sure I'm down with spending a bunch of money to build a comfy resort for murderers.

well, when someone proposes something that is even close to a comfy resort for murderers, that would be a relevant concern

Originally posted by TacDavey
The location mostly. That's all I've been asking this whole time. Is this a program that you want to take place in prisons? Or are we talking about building special facilities to accommodate this program?

In prisons, I would assume. There are already programs in prisons to teach convicts useful skills. One of the problems with purely punitive prison systems is that they at their best they don't change anything in the long term.

A young man joins a gang because he needs protection and has his lack of education means that the gang pays better than any job he can get.
He kills someone as part of a gang war and gets sentenced to 25 years in prison.
25 years later a man leaves the prison. He needs protection, has no skills he can sell, and hates authority more than ever.
Guess what happens next.

Programs to teach skills deal with part of the problem, they make it so that convicts don't need to be in the life they were in. Social reform programs deal with the other part, they (with much more difficulty) produce convicts who don't want to be in that life.

man, now my answer just looks douchey

And now mine looks like I'm talking with a big old stick up my butt

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Guess what happens next.


RstNbEVRuMw

god, I just want to post the entire series here...

TV will never be this good again

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In prisons, I would assume. There are already programs in prisons to teach convicts useful skills. One of the problems with purely punitive prison systems is that they at their best they don't change anything in the long term.

A young man joins a gang because he needs protection and has his lack of education means that the gang pays better than any job he can get.
He kills someone as part of a gang war and gets sentenced to 25 years in prison.
25 years later a man leaves the prison. He needs protection, has no skills he can sell, and hates authority more than ever.
Guess what happens next.

Programs to teach skills deal with part of the problem, they make it so that convicts don't need to be in the life they were in. Social reform programs deal with the other part, they (with much more difficulty) produce convicts who don't want to be in that life.

Alright, that makes sense.