Society and getting assaulted in jail

[Loren Booda]

Replace "DUI" with "schizophrenia." The largest de facto mental institutions in the U.S. are the Los Angeles County Jail and Rikers Island in New York. The patients of the 50's became the homeless of the 70's became the inmates of the 90's.

For those of you who know about psychosis, a horrifying, no-fault condition by itself, imagine being thrown into prison with such a condition, without medication, subject to extreme isolation, assault and suicide. One schizophrenic man took his own life with the only available means - jamming toilet paper down his throat.

Who gives a damn? Few, either Republican or Democrat.

 

[devil-fire]

im wondering what the difference is between being raped in prison and being whipped? we all know prison guards are not supposed to whip/beat/permanently disable/abuse/mutilate prisoners because its an inhumane way to treat a person, but if these things happen to prisoners By prisoners, that's perfectly acceptable somehow? i think not. remember that people are sentanced to consecutive life sentances for violently raping people. there is no excuse for doing this to another person, no matter how much emotional anguish they might have inflicted.

if a person getting systematically raped while in a prison is not a bad thing, i don't understand how cutting the hands off thieves is any different.

what do you think the rapists in prison are going to do then they get out? well raping an actual women would be a great idea when you think about it. they have lots of practice raping people who can resist more then a 130lb woman could, and when they get caught and sentenced to more prison time, why would they care? they don't have to listen to a manager tell them to scrub toilets or risk getting shot while selling drugs any more.

 

[Mk]

Is it just me, or is the main point of prison NOT TO:

1. Reform
2. Punish
3. Be nice
4. Be mean

But instead, to move those societal degenerates away from functional, productive society? Secondary objectives are to keep people in fear of being sent away, and to try and hope if they leave, that they come out functional and productive for society.

 

[Alkatran]

You can't watch enough of the prisoners enough of the time to stop this. So you need some sort of deterrent. The problems is: they're already in prison. More time in prison isn't nearly as scary because, hey, they're on top.

So you need a worse punishment (like solitary, torture, or death). Of course, all of those are pretty cruel... Do we want to be cruel to seriously misbehaving prisoners?

 

[devil-fire]

Is it just me, or is the main point of prison... to move those societal degenerates away from functional, productive society?

i agree that this is the most basic function of a prison, however i would like to think the institution has evolved some in the past few hundred years.

Secondary objectives are to keep people in fear of being sent away, and to try and hope if they leave, that they come out functional and productive for society

i also agree on this point. i think the modern prison system in western society has no problem fulfilling the primary function and we are now able to focus on these secondary functions as basic roles of the institution. i would like to point out though that i think the 'fear of being sent away' should refer to having limited freedoms and not include the possibility of systematic rape or abuse.

 

[ray b]

sad to see so many hard time fans here
sorry but I expect better from smarter people
but most echo the deep south rednecked ideals of a chaingang

a DUI without hurting anyone
should not land one in a hard core max prison
but a rehab type place without predatory type people
BUT the USA has far tooo many people in prisons
mostly nonviolent types for rule breaking like DUI or drugs
both are not cured by hard time
and should never be mixed with rape
or predatory type people who should be locked up
but not with DUI or drug people

I think prisons are run by nasty people
who care little about those in them
and our culture should ashamed of they way we handle this
we can and should do better

 

[arildno]

What intent you have for locking up someone pretty much determines what you'd accept going on in there, or how long you think people should sit there.

Personally, I think neither the punishment idea or the rehabilitation thinking have much force; segregation of dangerous persons (irrespective of such flawed ideas of whether a person was "sane" in a judicial sense or not) is my favoured view.

I don't see any reason why one should wilfully harm others, calling it "punishment"; that's just plain old cruelty dressed up for the occasion.

Nor do I see any sound reason to emancipate individuals one has reason to suspect will harm others. That's dangerously naive.
By default, then, people proven to have harmed others seriously ought to be indefinitely restrained in some sort of manner, until we can be certain they won't do so again.

 

[Moonbear]

a DUI without hurting anyone
should not land one in a hard core max prison
but a rehab type place without predatory type people

I agree. Someone getting repeated DUIs is not likely doing it because they have a criminal intent, but more likely has a substance abuse problem that needs to be treated. It makes no sense at all to lock them up in a maximum security prison with rapists and murderers. Non-violent offenders whose crimes are primarily related to substance abuse problems need a different facility from those who are violent offenders or who actually have criminal intent. Every effort should also be made to identify those violent offenders who have committed their crimes because of treatable mental illnesses (such as schizophrenia, as mentioned above). For some of these people, until treatment is effective, they are every bit as dangerous as hardened criminals, so they may still need a maximum security facility, but that should also mean maximum security FOR the inmates, not FROM the inmates.

If we expect to release people from prison, which we do, then we shouldn't be subjecting them to conditions that return them to society worse off than when they went in. It makes no sense to make them less capable of assimmilating back into society upon their release. That only increases the likelihood of recidivism.

Of course, prison is not meant to be a country club either...we don't want people committing new crimes after leaving because it's a better life for them in prison than out of prison (for some, it is...3 squares and a cot is better than being hungry and sleeping in a cardboard box somewhere). But it needn't be a hell hole either.

Why are these things not changed? Money. It will be expensive to revamp the entire prison system. To treat the mentally ill as mentally ill rather than caging them up and ignoring their illness will require improvements to facilities, increased personnel, and all of the related medical treatment. But, converting a number of prisons to maximum security mental hospitals and treating the root of these people's problems rather than the symptoms would likely go a long way toward reducing recidivism. It would also take a change in mentality about sentencing. Instead of sentences defined by time limits, sentences defined by progress would be better in those cases. When the inmate/patient is on a treatment that is effective, and stabilized, and has had sufficient time to overcome any addictions to the extent they are likely to be able to stay clean once released, then release them. Otherwise, if they are not effectively stabilized, or are resistant to available treatments, then hold them longer, or transfer to a longer term mental hospital for continuation of care.

Trying to get such changes implemented, and the money for them is certainly tough when you have so many people with the attitude that these prisoners are simply the scum of the Earth rather than people with problems that need to be addressed. Some will always be too unsafe to return to society...the murderer or serial rapist who will do it again the moment they miss a few doses of medication, so needs lifelong supervision to ensure they take their medication.

If you treated all those in prison because of mental illness as mentally ill and not criminal, then the only people left to deal with would be those who are more of opportunists and commit crimes because they know/think they can get away with it to get rich quick, such as con artists, drug dealers (not users), and white collar criminals.

 

[Mk]

a DUI without hurting anyone
should not land one in a hard core max prison
but a rehab type place without predatory type people

Don't think it did! And they do make you do a rehab type place, a course, even in many cases that you aren't I drunkard or addict.

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_re_us/scalia_daughter_dui

WHEATON, Ill. - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's daughter was arrested this week and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and child endangerment, officials said Wednesday.

She will likely not go to jail or prison.

The situation in the OP seems to be one of 'cruel and unusal' punishment, and that has been a persistent problem as long as I can remember. For most, it's out of sight, out of mind. To change it would require politicians with moral conviction, or a society with a moral conviction to make the system less retributive and more penitential.

 

[hypatia]

Being the mother of a child murdered by a 4 time DUI driver...I wonder just how many chances you want to give these "poor people with a problem" to kill?

Edited to add, In MI, they do give you large fines{up to 10,000} and mandatory treatment, many times befor you get to go to prison.

 

[Astronuc]

Being the mother of a child murdered by a 4 time DUI driver...I wonder just how many chances you want to give these "poor people with a problem" to kill?

My condolensces on your loss, hypatia.

I don't think anyone here wants people guilty of DUI out and about. Rather, I believe the point is to put them in a facility where they cannot harm others, hopefully receive treatment (cure?), and are not viciously harmed themselves. White collar criminals, who cause significant harm financially and otherwise, can sit in what are effectively country-clubs (minimum security prison).

The treatment of irresponsible people who DWI/DUI on alcohol or other substances is nonuniform. Some people get the book thrown at them the first or second time, while others go out and repeat many times. My wife was a drug and alcohol counselor, and what she had to deal with was unbelieveable.

The 4-time DUI who killed your child should not have been allowed behind the wheel.

The point of justice is uniformity and fairness - everyone gets similar treatment for the same infractions. Certainly, the first DUI indicates that someone putting others at risk for harm or death, and that should be enough to revoke the 'privilege' (and responsibility) of driving.

Compare the man in the OP with the guy that broadsided a car and killed an infant, because he ran a stop sign while making a call on his cell phone. He was found not guilty of the homicide.

 

[hypatia]

Back to the OP

Sing-Sing NY was the model for the reform of prisoners. The emphasis was on individual cell-block architecture to create an environment to rehabilitate and reform, to separate the criminal from all contact with corruption and then teach him moral habits of order and regularity. This was in 1824.

The second wave of prison reform began with the 1870 National Congress on Penitentiary and Reformatory Discipline that led to the founding of the American Correctional Association, known then as the National Prison Association, and to the building of Elmira Reformatory. Zebulon Brockway began an effort to classify and segregate type of prisoners, provide individualized treatment including vocational training, rewards for good behavior, parole, indeterminate sentences. The focus shifted from penitence and punishment to individual treatment.
This was in 1876

And now after 100's of such reform programs have been inacted, prison still doesn't cure all but a few.

It seems prison reform is a on going problem. And its not just a problem in the states, its world wide. And its not just men being raped in prison, its woman too.
There is much unfairness in the systems world wide. But then again, there is not a whole lot about the world that is fair. But I know when I explained to my foster son, that I would not bail him out of jail{he had a few ruff years}, but I would be willing to send him soap on a rope. The look of horror on his face was more realizing then when I told him about facing the judge.

 

[ray b]

Don't think it did! And they do make you do a rehab type place, a course, even in many cases that you aren't I drunkard or addict.

state laws and trial count rulings vary
the outcome is more random then rational
and very often illrational even absurd
manditory minimums come into play too

most get a big fine the first time
treatment and/or some jail the second
and prison for the third
but rules for the rich are very very different

 

[Loren Booda]

Being raped in prison might drive one to drink or abuse other substances. Also, prisons have a cornucopia of addictive drugs for the right price. The longer they're in for, the more difficult seems the rehabilitation.

 

[Leah]

It's not fair what happened to you. My mom always told me that 'life is not fair'. Not only can you be raped in prison, but you can be raped in the outside world too. I have, several times. You just have to deal with it!

 

[Cyrus]

I don't want to come off as cold hearted here. But what all that I'm saying is that if you do a crime 3 times, you are going to have to pay the price for your actions. Even though this is not what he is sentenced to 'by law', it is what happens in the 'Real world'. He should have weighed that into his choices in life.

Now, if this were a guy who did something bad one time and it was minor, I might have sympathy for him. If it was a person who had never been to prison, I would be open ears. But this guy is just an idiot. So, no I don't feel bad for him nor do I really want to hear his crying.

We have all gotten speeding tickets. But for most of us, we drive fast and get a ticket at most, 1 time out of every 100 we speed?

That means to get caught 3 times in a row, this guy was doing a lot of drinking and driving those other times he did not get caught.

 

[Moonbear]

Being the mother of a child murdered by a 4 time DUI driver...I wonder just how many chances you want to give these "poor people with a problem" to kill?

The point is to get them treatment so they don't repeat the offense and kill someone. What I'm suggesting is that sending someone to prison for a few years, exposing them to rape, or other violence, allowing them to become addicted to more drugs (an understandable reaction in an attempt to "escape" awareness of the horror of knowing you'll be repeatedly raped with no way to avoid it), and then releasing them with more addictions than they started with, and likely more anger and hate than when they entered, because some arbitrary time limit expired, is MORE likely to result in a repeated offense. Instead, put them in a supervised program, more like an involuntary committment for a psychiatric disorder (it fits the criteria of posing a risk of harm to self or others, doesn't it?), and get them clean, not put them in an environment where their addictions will just worsen, and don't let them out until they are better. Treat it as a hospital, not a punishment with an arbitrary time limit, and perhaps that person would have only had one DUI on their record, not 4 plus vehicular manslaughter.

In some cases, this might extend sentences longer, if someone needs more time to get better, and in other cases, it might be a bit shorter. If the sentence is "to effect" and not "5 years with possibility of early parole," you aren't tossing people back out on the streets who aren't ready to return to society. Good behavior might mean your treatment is working, but doesn't necessarily mean you're well enough to return to the streets. The criteria for legal insanity are quite different from medical criteria, and I think the medical criteria are what need to be employed when it comes to sentencing and decisions for release.

 

[denverdoc]

With rare exception there is small effort at rehab, most have given up on such a notion. Can prison be made so miserable, that a single exposure would innoculate the inmate from any thought of misdeeds forever? Unlikely. And the more we get to know of the brains of the imprisoned, the less normal they seem. undercutting both the assumption that they are completely culpable in a moral sense, and serving reminder that punishment is the solution. In particular, impulsivity is a rising star in the "personality" traits that may predispose to crime. By its nature it is untempered to the same extent by previous negative experiences, as others might be. You see this with disruptive kids all the time.

This is not meant to be some bleeding heart they are all victims soapbox stance. But if we want to ditch the present proposition which has an unprescedented an disproportionate number of US citizens behind bars, we need to break free from the assumption that all reasonable minds work alike.

What we do know, maybe, is that sociopathy seems to be incurable--and there are many more of these walking about and succeeding in huge measure, than behind bars. But they seem so normal to appearances, like you and me, that when caught, do little if any time, and are often model prisoners.

 

[hypatia]

As a 4 time offender in MI, he had already gone into the mandatory treatment programs, had already been fined thousands of dollars, had already had his driveing license removed {driveing without one}. Every state has programs set aside, with special funding, and special staff.
Those programs only work for people who want to change. Many choose not to change.
They are still murders, and in my eyes are no better then someone on crack with a gun shooting kids. They need to be in prison, they need to understand they are as "bad" as the people they are with. If they have totally blown off the chances they were given, then the choice to be in prison, was also there own.
The guy in the OP, I don't feel sorry for him, not one bit.

 

[denverdoc]

As a 4 time offender in MI, he had already gone into the mandatory treatment programs, had already been fined thousands of dollars, had already had his driveing license removed {driveing without one}. Every state has programs set aside, with special funding, and special staff.
Those programs only work for people who want to change. Many choose not to change.
They are still murders, and in my eyes are no better then someone on crack with a gun shooting kids. They need to be in prison, they need to understand they are as "bad" as the people they are with. If they have totally blown off the chances they were given, then the choice to be in prison, was also there own.
The guy in the OP, I don't feel sorry for him, not one bit.

Precisely. All these consequences talk to the cortex of the brain, when the lesion is in a much more primitive, both evolutionarily speaking as well as in ints spere of influence.

You can choose not to feel sorry for him, but better methods of treatment are available, while not costing the state 50k/yr to warehouse him./

 

[Lume]

Defending the violence of the status quo is both lazy and easy. It takes very little brainpower, empathy, or anything else. All you have to do is keep harping that, "this is the way things are!"

It's the position that would've justified killing rape victims in the old days because they were "unclean"; keeping slaves because it was profitable for the slaveholders; torturing witches because it was an effective way of determining whether they were innocent or not.

I think what we should be asking is whether a society that allows rape should be considered a society in the first place.

 

[mathwonk]

please. isn't there enough ***** in the world.

 

[Cyrus]

I think what we should be asking is whether a society that allows rape should be considered a society in the first place.

We don't allow rape, so this is a meaningless statement. Just because it happens does not mean its allowed.

 

[scorpa]

Defending the violence of the status quo is both lazy and easy. It takes very little brainpower, empathy, or anything else. All you have to do is keep harping that, "this is the way things are!"

It's the position that would've justified killing rape victims in the old days because they were "unclean"; keeping slaves because it was profitable for the slaveholders; torturing witches because it was an effective way of determining whether they were innocent or not.

I think what we should be asking is whether a society that allows rape should be considered a society in the first place.

And what about sitting on an internet forum spouting off about how things should change but doing nothing about it isn't lazy and easy either? What are all of you who feel so strongly about this doing to change it? I'm not trying to seem like a jerk about this, but there seem to be a lot of people on here talking about the other side with their "redneck backcountry hick uneducated lazy and easy way out views" but I don't see anyone saying what they are doing about it.

I will fully admit that I am all for punishment...they deserve it. When I say punishment I do not mean that petty criminals should be locked up with the hardcore criminals in a max security prison but do I believe that the murderers, rapists, child predators should be locked up and live a life of hell. Rehab is great if it works, but they also have to want it, and I'm not entirely convinced they all do, and no amount of rehab will bring their victims back to life or change what happened to them.

Some people that commit crimes do genuinely have mental issues beyond their control and obviously they should not be locked up but should be given the help they need. But you cannot tell me there are not just some truly evil people in this world that know exactly what they are doing and don't care about what their actions do to other people.

Obviously those locked up in prison should not be allowed to rape, do drugs, and whatever else it is they do. When I said I didn't care what happened to them I wasn't condoning such actions, I am just saying that they put themselves in that situation and I have a hard time finding any sympathy for them.

The guy that was a 3rd or 4th time DUI is an absolute idiot, and deserves incarceration. Someone a few posts back mentioned that no one actually died from one particular case of a DUI, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. The second he got behind the wheel he put those around him at risk. He deserved everything he got and more. Hypatia has my deepest sympathy for what happened, and what happened to her son is exactly why such people should be dealt with the first time and severely. Alcoholic or not they know damn well what can happen when they drive drunk.

Honestly prison is a bit to much of a cakewalk, sit in cell all day, have the rest of society pay to feed, clothe, educate you and put you through rehab. Maybe hard labour would be a solution, wouldn't be any crap happening if they were so exhausted by the end of the day they could barely stand.
Both sides of this argument obviously have valid points, and I do not thing that a solution based on the argument of only one side will be the right one.

That all being said, I apologize for rambling on and genuinely hope that I did not offend anyone with any of my statements. I hope nothing I said will be taken the wrong way, I am not usually a fan of debating on internet forums because it is easy to misinterpret opinions and take things the wrong way.

 

[denverdoc]

We don't know that the guy is an idiot, only one who has a problem and exercises very bad judgement under the influence, where he seems to spend a good deal of his time. You can lock him up in the hopes that he gets it--at taxpayer expense--or simply take away his right to drink. This can be accomplished using disulfiram and testing. Here in Colorado many second time and even first time offenders are being referred to physicians for such. Seems more enlightened than throwing them in jail where kids and family will take a major hit--bit like UN sanctions, punish the population for the acts of the gov't in the hopes this will change the leader's actions, who like Saddam are often sociopathic to the extreme. Dumb.

 

[Moridin]

We don't know that the guy is an idiot, only one who has a problem and exercises very bad judgement under the influence, where he seems to spend a good deal of his time.

A behavior that is to drive drunk a third time after being caught two times already can be indeed classified as stupid behavior. Just because you have a problem drinking doesn't excuse your actions. After the second time, he could just ask someone to hide his car keys, or wait, even better install an alcometer in his car.

 

[denverdoc]

Aye, the above action is stupid alright, but alcohol does that. So agreed, he should have stashed his keys, drank at home, taken a cab, whatever.

We don't have enuf data to classify him as an all round idiot, just a part time one--he may be a astrophysicist on his day job, and a damn good one at that. Alcometers can be beat--it should have never reached a 4'th time is my point, had earlier interventions been better. I treat addictions as part of my practice and most addicts are far smarter than the average bear has been my experience.

 

[Lume]

We don't allow rape, so this is a meaningless statement. Just because it happens does not mean its allowed.

Just because it happens and no one does anything about it doesn't mean it's allowed? Really?? I think we are operating with two different definitions of the word "allowed."

What are all of you who feel so strongly about this doing to change it? I'm not trying to seem like a jerk about this, but there seem to be a lot of people on here talking about the other side with their "redneck backcountry hick uneducated lazy and easy way out views" but I don't see anyone saying what they are doing about it.

Who am I, Don Quixote? It's hard to change an evil in the system before you convince a certain number of people that it's evil in the first place. Trying to raise awareness is the first step, but I plan to give money to human rights organizations once I actually have an income, if that answers your question. If you’re willing to help fight for basic human rights for everyone, and not just the people you find morally pleasant, that’s one more person on the right side.

The guy that was a 3rd or 4th time DUI is an absolute idiot, and deserves incarceration.

I would say that he is a drug addict, which we all have the potential to be. I realize that’s not as easy as simply dismissing him as an idiot, but I think it’s a little closer to the truth.


There is a plethora of information available that driving while using a cell phone is even more dangerous than driving drunk. Perhaps we should allow anyone that drives with a cell phone to be raped, too, while we're playing the "what if they did that" game, trying to provoke each other’s outrage.

 

[Cyrus]

Just because it happens and no one does anything about it doesn't mean it's allowed? Really?? I think we are operating with two different definitions of the word "allowed."

Murder is not allowed, but it happens all the time. I have no clue what your talking about though...