PDA

View Full Version : Ideas for Productive Sentences



svartabrandr
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 08:07 AM
In my opinion once someone is sentenced and sent to jail our prime concern should be getting as much out of him/her as possible. In prisons in Canada for example once someone commits murder and is found guilty he is simply going to go to jail for a long time. Not much good comes out of this. According to statistics it cost $68,985 a year per canadian prisoner in 2001 and the costs are rising. So not only are we not gaining anything from these criminals but we are paying large amounts of money for them to sit around. Those that commit severe enough crimes aren’t getting punished that much and most of them do not get rehabilitated. I think that some of these people should be "donated to science". Various experiments, medical procedures etc. could be performed on them which could greatly benefit the people. Others could be killed and their organs could be given to those who could put them to good use. Others still could have blood drawn from them regularly for the blood banks. Perhaps the higher profile criminals could be executed and then the body could be auctioned off to the highest bidder? The money could then be donated to various organizations. I am sure hard labor could also be put to good use(I wonder how much power we could get if we hooked up a couple of prisons to generators and put all their prisoners on some treadmills:D)

What are your thoughts? Do any of you agree? Any other ideas?

Moody
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 05:29 PM
I'm not sure we'd want the blood and organs of criminals; the idea is to get their blood OUT of the gene-pool.

I would like to see a creative roster of beatings and mutilations, as well as the use of exile.
Hard labour too could be brought back, as you suggest.

But I would not like to view the criminal as a comodity used to make money: - that is ignoble.
By the same token, our liberal system DOES spend too much on them.

Awar
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 05:42 PM
The DNA of a donated organ has nothing to do with criminality.
Anyway, not everyone who is a criminal is genetically predisposed to be a criminal, some things happen out of circumstance. The world is infinitely more complex than that.

First of all, let's see if the penal system works at all. What sort of people are incarcerated, why did they commit crimes, why were they sentenced.
How much would hard labour of criminals have an effect on other aspects of society.
Would it work so well, that it would tempt the authorities to make more people into slaves, just to make a buck on every new prisoner.

Political prisoners exist and also cost money. What if a fellow National-Socialist of yours got incarcerated for his political activism, would you support the penal system using him as a slave?

Moody
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 06:01 PM
The DNA of a donated organ has nothing to do with criminality.
Anyway, not everyone who is a criminal is genetically predisposed to be a criminal, some things happen out of circumstance. The world is infinitely more complex than that.

First of all, let's see if the penal system works at all. What sort of people are incarcerated, why did they commit crimes, why were they sentenced.
How much would hard labour of criminals have an effect on other aspects of society.
Would it work so well, that it would tempt the authorities to make more people into slaves, just to make a buck on every new prisoner.

Political prisoners exist and also cost money. What if a fellow National-Socialist of yours got incarcerated for his political activism, would you support the penal system using him as a slave?

My ideal Penal system would be a N-S system. So if N-S were penalised it would be for non-N-S activities.

As for whether a penal system "works" or not; no system is going to eradicate crime, as this is a tendency of human beings anyway.

So whether we spend lots of money trying to rehabilitate criminals [as in liberal systems] or we give them a spartan regime of hard labour, corporal punishment, exile, castration, sterilisation, and capital punishment [as I would advocate], - criminals will still be there.

However, I believe the latter measures produce a better civil order, and they also assuage the desire for retribution felt by mankind at large.

Indeed, punishment is a kind of festival and joy, which we lack today.

Whether criminality is a matter of genes or not, I do not accept that serious criminals should be allowed to breed or to pollute the populace at large.
So I use the term "better out of the gene-pool" in that sense.

And if research eventually proves that serious criminality is gene-based, then so much the better.

What are your solutions to this complex problem?

svartabrandr
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 03:46 AM
I'm not sure we'd want the blood and organs of criminals; the idea is to get their blood OUT of the gene-pool. Giving the organs of criminals to another would not change the genes of that person. Same thing with blood. No need to worry.



Political prisoners exist and also cost money. What if a fellow National-Socialist of yours got incarcerated for his political activism, would you support the penal system using him as a slave? All of what I said in my original post are things that I would only like to see applied once a proper government is in power so having fellow ns people punished would not be a problem.



Would it work so well, that it would tempt the authorities to make more people into slaves, just to make a buck on every new prisoner. Nothing would change with the authorities. They would not gain anything new from arresting people. As for possible pressures from scientist or others I dont see this happening as there are more then enough prisoners to go around. Plus even if more people got arrested the would still have to be found guilty.


I do not accept that serious criminals should be allowed to breed or to pollute the populace at large.
I agree with you on this point. Serious criminals should be castrated.

Wouldn’t giving human subjects to scientist so that they may test government approved expirements be a win win situation? I am sure the experiments would not be pleasant and we could advance our knowledge in various fields. These projects would all be things that could make life better for the country. Wouldn’t this be better then simply punishing them? In a way we would be forcing these people to contribute to society.

Telperion
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 04:12 AM
Every menial job which ordinary Canadians apparently refuse to do (seasonal fruit-picking, street-cleaning, etc.) could be farmed out to criminals convicted of minor crimes. The benefit of this is that immigration advocates would no longer be able to use the refusal of Canadians to do these jobs as a rationale for importing immigrants (and their families) to do them.

As for major felons, they should simply be euthanized. They are too dangerous to be trusted with any responsible task, and it is outrageous to spend thousands of dollars per year on their upkeep.

bocian
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 04:27 AM
The Canadian Legal system is an absolute joke. Homolka anyone?

As Telperion suggested, murderers should be euthanized. Why waste money on the bastard, and moreover why in the hell should we want to 'rehabilitate' him/her? If there is such a thing as rehabilitation...

Castration seems like a fair penalty for sex offenders, along with jail time.

Asbestos removal seems like a good job for them. Or even better, crash test dummies. For example, If the "dummy" survives the crash then his sentence would be lowered from death to life, or something along those lines.

TisaAnne
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 05:09 AM
I would like to see a creative roster of beatings and mutilationsI believe that a criminal deserves his/her punishment...but I don't feel that any means of torture or brutality is morally justifiable. Torture as means of punishment has been around forever...and did it ever do any good? Did people follow the examples of the criminals who were mutilated and beaten? No...unfortunately, consequence is simply over looked by those who truly wish to be deviants. :(

As for the scientific experiments... that, IMO, is barbaric. Even though a person can commit an atrocious crime, I don't feel that turning them into lab rats is right or just. Because a person makes a mistake is no reason for them to be subjected, unwillingly, to the frighteningly horrible whims of science. The criminal deserves to be punished, but not poked, prodded and tortured for the "greater good of humanity"...What would that say about the morals and regard for human life that upstanding individuals are supposed to possess?

For serious criminals, as said before, euthanasia is the easiest, cheapest and most humane method for erradicating those who have committed a terrible crime. "Eye for an eye" is where logic meets justice.


Hard labour too could be brought back, as you suggest.
Hard labor is, I think, the best idea out of every one proposed. Make the bastards work...even if it's until they are old and decrepit, make them pay for the crimes that they have committed. Put prisoners in factories, fields and building sites...free labor would save tons of money and take away the jobs that most immigrants already have anyway. (if there were no jobs for immigrants, maybe they would leave?!!! :D )

svartabrandr
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 05:53 AM
Every menial job which ordinary Canadians apparently refuse to do (seasonal fruit-picking, street-cleaning, etc.) could be farmed out to criminals convicted of minor crimes. The benefit of this is that immigration advocates would no longer be able to use the refusal of Canadians to do these jobs as a rationale for importing immigrants (and their families) to do them.

Hard labor is, I think, the best idea out of every one proposed. Make the bastards work...even if it's until they are old and decrepit, make them pay for the crimes that they have committed. Put prisoners in factories, fields and building sites...free labor would save tons of money and take away the jobs that most immigrants already have anyway. (if there were no jobs for immigrants, maybe they would leave?!!! :D )
Thats a great idea:). For some reason I did not think of the immigrant angle.

Northern Paladin
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 10:06 PM
More Effecient Death Row Process.
The fact it could take 10 Years just to execute someone is Ridiculous.
Why should a Murder be given that much time? A total waste of Public funds/resources is what it is.
They had the right idea back in the old days. A rope around the Neck or a Bullet between the Eyes.

Harsher Punishments(Longer Sentences). Forced Physcial labor of Immates(Prison should be Hell). Immates should be forced to pay back "Society" through Physical Labor and various building projects.

More Executions. There is too much Scum out there. Most are unredeemable. If you let them out they will just return and be a strain upon the System so why not just Execute them?

Northern Paladin
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure we'd want the blood and organs of criminals; the idea is to get their blood OUT of the gene-pool.

I would like to see a creative roster of beatings and mutilations, as well as the use of exile.
Hard labour too could be brought back, as you suggest.

But I would not like to view the criminal as a comodity used to make money: - that is ignoble.
By the same token, our liberal system DOES spend too much on them.

All Good Ideas. The fact that Criminals haven't been getting Beatins and Tortures they deserve is proof of a Society Gone Soft.
The Modern Trend toward Humanitarianism is a recipe for certain diaster. The
Multicultural mess we are into today can be blamed on such thinking.


Hard Labor would actually make them Productive and be a way that they pay back society. Yes the money spent on them could be spent on more worthy causes such as improving the Transportation system or building new Hospitals.
The fact is too few Death Penatlies are being handed out and Death Row is horribly inefficent. Hence the strained Prison system.

Telperion
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 10:47 PM
More Effecient Death Row Process.
The fact it could take 10 Years just to execute someone is Ridiculous.
Why should a Murder be given that much time? A total waste of Public funds/resources is what it is.

Yes, that's an important point. I've read somewhere that in the US, it actually costs more to execute a murderer than to support him in prison for the rest of his natural life, due to the enormous costs involved in the appeals process. (And sometimes it takes nearer to 20 years to execute a convicted murderer.)

The whole process needs to be sharply streamlined. When Britain had the death penalty, for instance, the average time period between conviction for murder and execution was one month.

However, to attain that sort of efficiency, the entire current legal system of due process 'rights' would have to be scrapped, which would involve major constitutional amendments. In Canada's case, it would also require the firing of the Supreme Court judges, who recently held that there are no circumstances under which it would ever be acceptable to impose the death penalty here, or even extradite a foreigner to a country where they might face it. These idiot judges need to go.

JoeDas
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 08:04 AM
It is often said that you can tell a lot about a society by how it treats its criminals.

That said, I have to disagree with just about everyone who posted in this thread. Severe punishments are not a good idea, since as a society we really shouldn't want to go back to the days of the infamous Tucker Prison Farm in Arkansas or the days when English convicts danced the Tyburn Jig ona regular basis


Think of it this way: if you were to be sentanced to prison tommorow, you wouldn't want there to be the kinds of severe punishments that many in this thread have outlined. And don't say "I can't go to prison", because if Martha Stewart can get sent up the river, anyone can

Telperion
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 04:02 PM
It is often said that you can tell a lot about a society by how it treats its criminals.

What reforms would you make to the current system, if any?

JoeDas
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 04:55 PM
What reforms would you make to the current system, if any?More emphasis on rehabilitation, less emphasis on punishment. Get rid of MMS (Mandatory Minimum Sentences). Get rid of "Three Strikes". Clamp down on illegal immigration (I read somewhere that over 25% of people in jails and prisons are illegals). Don't throw people in jail so much for minor drug offenses. Provide more opportunities to parolees once they are released from prison so they don't end up going right back to their old ways.

Telperion
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 05:34 PM
You seem to be proposing that the US shift its sentencing and prison system to something along the lines of the current Canadian system, which is based on principles similar to those you have outlined.

These principles assume that criminal behaviour is basically a learned behavioural deficiency, a sort of programming flaw in a person's character which can be corrected if they are placed in the right environment.

However, one could question what the purpose of sentencing is supposed to be. Is it to reform the prisoner's behaviour, to protect society, or to see that justice is done, i.e. that the perpetrator is punished in order to symbolically redress the harm they have done to their victims and to society? Why is your emphasis on behavioural reform?

Bearing that in mind, I would make the following comments about your specific points:


More emphasis on rehabilitation, less emphasis on punishment.
Again, this seems to presume that punishment, in the sense of providing some sort of symbolic redress for the harm caused by the perpetrator, is not as significant an objective of the criminal justice system as rehabilitation, or perhaps not a valid objective at all. Many victims of crimes - or their families, in the case of murder victims - would doubtless disagree.

Also, it is important to note that a substantial proportion of the prison population appears to consist of psychopaths, who are effectively incurable. How would you deal with such individuals, who can't or won't be rehabilitated?


Get rid of MMS (Mandatory Minimum Sentences).
Do you really trust judges to always make the right decisions about sentencing, at their discretion? Complete judicial discretion in sentencing tends to provoke community outrage, when the sentence does not reflect what majority opinion thinks is an appropriate sentence for the crime in question. Why shouldn't the majority be able, through the legislature, to dictate the minimum sentences for crimes, based on their sense of justice?


Get rid of "Three Strikes". I'd agree it should at least be reformed so as not to catch those guilty of relatively minor offenses, such as shoplifting, drug possession, etc.


Clamp down on illegal immigration (I read somewhere that over 25% of people in jails and prisons are illegals). Indeed, but in the case of the US that would require fortifying your southern border, and re-deploying most of your military down there to defend it.


Don't throw people in jail so much for minor drug offenses. Personally, I would legalize all drugs (as I pointed out in the thread on that topic), and let drug users take the consequences of their pattern of behaviour, according to the degree to which they can use drugs responsibly.


Provide more opportunities to parolees once they are released from prison so they don't end up going right back to their old ways.Mandatory prison work programs do or could provide ex-prisoners with various job skills in any event, in the case of those convicted of minor crimes who might otherwise be redeemable.

But, this goes back to the point above about psychopaths in the prison population, many of whom are quite content to go back to their old ways regardless of the opportunities available to them. Why should these people be released back into society at all, and why should society have to pay for their permanent incarceration either?

JoeDas
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 06:47 PM
You seem to be proposing that the US shift its sentencing and prison system to something along the lines of the current Canadian system, which is based on principles similar to those you have outlined.

These principles assume that criminal behaviour is basically a learned behavioural deficiency, a sort of programming flaw in a person's character which can be corrected if they are placed in the right environment.

However, one could question what the purpose of sentencing is supposed to be. Is it to reform the prisoner's behaviour, to protect society, or to see that justice is done, i.e. that the perpetrator is punished in order to symbolically redress the harm they have done to their victims and to society? Why is your emphasis on behavioural reform?I think that criminal behavior is indeed learned. As an example I would point out that two and three generations ago, Italian-Americans were notorious for their heavy involvment in organized crime, but today the descendents of these people are as law abiding as the rest of American society.

Behavioral reform should be the emphasis for two reasons. Reason #1 is about compassion and humanity. We as a society shouldn't punish our own citizens anywhere near as severely as many in this thread have recommended if we want to be able to honestly call ourselves civilized. Reason #2 is that the central purpose of any first-world prison system is ostensibly "Corrections". They aren't called prison guards anymore, they're called "COs" (Correctional Officers). It doesn't 'correct' anything to punish and punish and punish. Punishment should be a part of it of course, but the main purpose ought to be Rehabilitation, it is better for society.



Again, this seems to presume that punishment, in the sense of providing some sort of symbolic redress for the harm caused by the perpetrator, is not as significant an objective of the criminal justice system as rehabilitation, or perhaps not a valid objective at all. Many victims of crimes - or their families, in the case of murder victims - would doubtless disagree.As I said, punishment should be a part of it, but it shouldn't be the main part. One way or another, most convicts will eventually walk the streets again. When they do, what's more important, whether or not they were punished or whether or not they changed their ways?



Also, it is important to note that a substantial proportion of the prison population appears to consist of psychopaths, who are effectively incurable. How would you deal with such individuals, who can't or won't be rehabilitated?There will always be some who won't change their ways, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try



Do you really trust judges to always make the right decisions about sentencing, at their discretion? Complete judicial discretion in sentencing tends to provoke community outrage, when the sentence does not reflect what majority opinion thinks is an appropriate sentence for the crime in question. Why shouldn't the majority be able, through the legislature, to dictate the minimum sentences for crimes, based on their sense of justice? Anyone involved in the judicial system or the prison/jail system will tell you that MMS has been a disaster. In the Commonwealth of Virginia if you are convicted of possession of a firearm, it's 5 years Minimum, regardless of the circumstances. If you ride in a stolen car, even if you don't know it is stolen and didn't participate in any way in stealing it, you get a few years MMS, I forget the exact number. There are even more extreme examples of this that I can't remember right now. MMS ties judges hands not enabling them to give the best possible setnece, MMS is needlessly harsh, and oftentimes it makes no sense at all like "Three Strikes" (for example first time offenders, minor crimes, drug crimes).



Personally, I would legalize all drugs (as I pointed out in the thread on that topic), and let drug users take the consequences of their pattern of behaviour, according to the degree to which they can use drugs responsibly.I don't know about legalization, but de-criminalization seems like a great idea to me. There are far too many people who get jail time for possession of Marijuana and get criminal records when their only crime was possession of a drug that might be no worse than the extended use of Tobacco. The system is too hard on drug users, and worst of all there is no decline in drug use at all, despite juveline and adult detention centers being full of Marijuana smokers



But, this goes back to the point above about psychopaths in the prison population, many of whom are quite content to go back to their old ways regardless of the opportunities available to them. Why should these people be released back into society at all, and why should society have to pay for their permanent incarceration either?We should strive to be a compassionate society as much as possible IMO. Call me naive, but I think everyone deserves a second chance, and in some cases even a third chance. We should not prejudge whether people are or are not able to change their ways.


It isn't uncommon to hear the expression "What Would Jesus Do?". Do you think Jesus would brutally punish criminals, lock them up and throw away the key? Or would he more compassionate? Speaking of Jesus, a big part of rehabilitation is and always has been the finding of religion on the part of the convicts. Everyone knows that prisoners oftentimes find religion while serving time, and when they are released, they are better people because of it. I forgot to mention that, as it should be a big part of the rehabilitation process.

Northern Paladin
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 07:03 PM
A Majority of the Repeat Offenders out their are Irredeemable. In fact the Prison population has the Largest Percentage of Psychopaths(60%) and it has been shown Psychopaths are unchangable in Character. Their State of Mind and propensity toward Criminal acts is due to their Brain Wiring and Chemistry which has been shown to be different from those of the Average person.


What would Jesus do?
That's a good question. Since Jesus made these Individuals to have Criminal Tendencies he Foresaw that they would get Punished. And why not give them the Death Penalty? Death is part of Life or else Jesus would have made it Otherwise. But this is not so Obviously Jesus wills Death for Some and Life for others. And the Death of Some will be to the Good of Others. Indeed the Living Tyrannize over the Dead.

Besides isn't this question WWJD just a way that the Church has used to Brain Wash and Manipulate it's Adherents. The Church like any organization is All too Human.

Telperion
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 07:41 PM
I think that criminal behavior is indeed learned.

Well, as NP pointed out, that is a highly contentious point. I suppose we could go into the studies on this, but the fact is that psychopathy seems to be an innate predisposition, hardwired into the nervous system and physiology, and studies have shown that a very large proportion of the prison population are psychopaths. These people are incapable of learning from mistakes or punishment of any sort, and so are basically irredeemable.

As a digression, I'm not sure that very many Italian-Americans were ever involved in organized crime - it would be doubtful if it were more than 1%, even in the heyday of the Italian Mob in NYC.


Behavioral reform should be the emphasis for two reasons. Reason #1 is about compassion and humanity. We as a society shouldn't punish our own citizens anywhere near as severely as many in this thread have recommended if we want to be able to honestly call ourselves civilized.

I don't support mediaeval punishments myself. But I do support a labour program for minor offenders. More serious offenders, e.g. murderers, should be euthanized (presumably by lethal injection), for the reasons I've outlined above. Whether that's brutal is open to debate.


Reason #2 is that the central purpose of any first-world prison system is ostensibly "Corrections". They aren't called prison guards anymore, they're called "COs" (Correctional Officers). It doesn't 'correct' anything to punish and punish and punish. Punishment should be a part of it of course, but the main purpose ought to be Rehabilitation, it is better for society.

That tells us what prisons are ostensibly about today, but not what they should be about in principle. On the basis of my argument above, it is doubtful in many instances that rehabilitation is better for society, since it appears destined to fail on a very frequent basis.


As I said, punishment should be a part of it, but it shouldn't be the main part. One way or another, most convicts will eventually walk the streets again. When they do, what's more important, whether or not they were punished or whether or not they changed their ways?

That depends on one's opinion about the purposes of the criminal justice system. Some people might say that for justice to be done (i.e. for the guilty to be punished) is more important as a matter of principle than is any practical objective. In my view, whether most convicts should walk the streets again depends on the seriousness of crimes for which they were convicted, and the probability they will re-offend.


There will always be some who won't change their ways, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try

In the case of dangerous offenders, for instance? What if we try rehabilitation with say, a convicted bank robber who is also a psychopath, the rehabilitation attempt fails, and upon release he robs another bank, murdering a teller in the process? The cost of this failure is the life of an innocent victim. Surely, at the least, some sort of cost-benefit analysis needs to enter into the decision on whether it is worth the effort to rehabilitate someone.



Anyone involved in the judicial system or the prison/jail system will tell you that MMS has been a disaster.

If there are problems with the inflexibility of MMS in a particular state, that may be a sign that the MMS system should be reformed, not that it should be scrapped entirely. As a counterexample, there are numerous cases in Canada of people who have committed very serious crimes (e.g. assault causing bodily harm), who have at the judge's discretion received almost no jail time, and who have gone on to commit more assaults, rapes, and even murders. This outrages the community - rightly so - and discredits the entire criminal justice system. Based on that experience, I would say that perhaps Virginia's MMS rules need to be re-evaluated in some cases, but they should certainly not be scrapped entirely.



We should strive to be a compassionate society as much as possible IMO. Call me naive, but I think everyone deserves a second chance, and in some cases even a third chance. We should not prejudge whether people are or are not able to change their ways.

Are we being compassionate by allowing repeat offenders on the streets again and again, thereby allowing them to prey on many victims who otherwise would have remained unmolested?


It isn't uncommon to hear the expression "What Would Jesus Do?". Do you think Jesus would brutally punish criminals, lock them up and throw away the key? Or would he more compassionate? Speaking of Jesus, a big part of rehabilitation is and always has been the finding of religion on the part of the convicts. Everyone knows that prisoners oftentimes find religion while serving time, and when they are released, they are better people because of it. I forgot to mention that, as it should be a big part of the rehabilitation process. Far be it from me to speak for Jesus. I do know that in the southern US, evangelical protestants occupy a prominent position in the ranks of those who support the death penalty, and harsh criminal punishments generally.

JoeDas
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 09:11 PM
In fact the Prison population has the Largest Percentage of Psychopaths(60%)Can you provide a source for this? And what are you referring to when you say Psychopaths anyway? If we're talking about the same thing, then I don't think prisons let in actual psychopaths, as psychopaths are sent to some sort of mental hospital instead of the Big House. Example: John Hinckley Jr.



I don't support mediaeval punishments myself. But I do support a labour program for minor offenders. More serious offenders, e.g. murderers, should be euthanized (presumably by lethal injection), for the reasons I've outlined above. Whether that's brutal is open to debate.There already are labor programs in prison, but it isn't the "hard labor" that the old Southern prisons were so notorious for decades ago. Murderers shouldn't be killed, it is inhumane to do so. What if Norway had decided to 'euthanize' Eric the Red, as he was also a murderer?



That depends on one's opinion about the purposes of the criminal justice system. Some people might say that for justice to be done (i.e. for the guilty to be punished) is more important as a matter of principle than is any practical objective. In my view, whether most convicts should walk the streets again depends on the seriousness of crimes for which they were convicted, and the probability they will re-offend. But again, under the current system, the vast majority of convicts will walk the streets again some day. Once they're free, the most important thing is not how harshly they were punished, but whether or not they changed their ways. You and Northern_Paladin think that many or most convicts are inherently unable to change their ways. Personally I think that this is too pessimistic of a worldview. I think that a large majority of people can change for the better.




In the case of dangerous offenders, for instance? What if we try rehabilitation with say, a convicted bank robber who is also a psychopath, the rehabilitation attempt fails, and upon release he robs another bank, murdering a teller in the process? The cost of this failure is the life of an innocent victim. Surely, at the least, some sort of cost-benefit analysis needs to enter into the decision on whether it is worth the effort to rehabilitate someone. I doubt an actual psychopath would go to prison in the first place, much less be released. Even if this situation did occur, wouldn't the logical conclusion be "The rehabilitation didn't work effectively"? You said that MMS shouldn't be abandoned, but that there are problems with it, so it should be reformed. So, if this hypothetical bank robbery actually took place, I would say "The concept of rehabilitation should not be abandonded, but there are problems with it, so it should be reformed"




I would say that perhaps Virginia's MMS rules need to be re-evaluated in some cases, but they should certainly not be scrapped entirely. Putting legal issues in the hands of politicians is probably not a good idea if you ask me. They do what's popular, not what ought to be done. The judges on the other hand aren't up for re-election in November, so clearly they are the better party to make decisions about sentencing. MMS laws waste money, they are unfair, and in my opinion, they constitute cruel and unusual punishment, which is expressly forbidden in the US Constitution.



Are we being compassionate by allowing repeat offenders on the streets again and again, thereby allowing them to prey on many victims who otherwise would have remained unmolested?This goes back to the idea that criminals are unable to change and will always be criminals, which I think is incorrect.



Far be it from me to speak for Jesus. I do know that in the southern US, evangelical protestants occupy a prominent position in the ranks of those who support the death penalty, and harsh criminal punishments generally.there is no instance in the New Testament of Jesus calling for any harsh or brutal punishments, but there are dozens of instances of Jesus forgiving people and calling on others to do the same. There are dozens of instances of Jesus associating with the 1st century Levant's equivalent of "untouchables", which in the modern day would certainly include convicts

Telperion
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 11:10 PM
Can you provide a source for this?
Here is an excerpt from a website describing a 1998 survey of the prison population in England and Wales (note; the terms 'psychopathy' and 'antisocial personality disorder' tend to be used synonymously, although APD focuses on some specific conduct criteria, whilte psychopathy focuses more on general disposition):


The most prevalent personality disorder was antisocial personality disorder which was found in 63% of male remand prisoners, 49% of sentenced prisoners and 31% of female prisoners. Source: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/green/s-off-05.htm



But again, under the current system, the vast majority of convicts will walk the streets again some day. Once they're free, the most important thing is not how harshly they were punished, but whether or not they changed their ways. It's precisely the fact that most of them eventually walk the streets again that I find objectionable. This is because of the danger they pose to others (and I am thinking specifically of violent offenders here).


I doubt an actual psychopath would go to prison in the first place, much less be released. Even if this situation did occur, wouldn't the logical conclusion be "The rehabilitation didn't work effectively"? You said that MMS shouldn't be abandoned, but that there are problems with it, so it should be reformed. So, if this hypothetical bank robbery actually took place, I would say "The concept of rehabilitation should not be abandonded, but there are problems with it, so it should be reformed"The issue of psychopathy and recidivism isn't simply a matter of opinion; many studies have been conducted on this matter. It's important to note that a psychopath is not the same as a psychotic, i.e. someone with dementia of the sort associated with several types of schizophrenia. Offenders who are psychotic sometimes meet the legal test of insanity, and end up being sent to hospitals for the criminally insane, rather than ordinary prisons.

Ordinary prisons are, however, full of psychopaths/APD's (as noted by the study quoted above), because psychopaths by definition are not legally insane. Indeed, the first description of psychopathy characterized it as manie sans delire, that is, as a sort of moral sickness unaccompanied by any perceptual delusions.

Here are some quotes on this issue, from a publicly accessible website run by the C.U.N.Y.:

The characteristics of a psychopath (known as the PCL criteria for psychopathy):



1. Glibness/Superficial Charm
2. Grandiose Sense of Self-Worth

3. Need for Stimulation/Proneness to Boredom

4. Pathological Lying

5. Conning/Manipulative

6. Lack of Remorse or Guilt

7. Shallow Affect

8. Callous/Lack of Empathy

9. Parasitic Lifestyle

10. Poor Behavioral Controls

11. Promiscuous Sexual Behavior

12. Early Behavioral Problems

13. Lack of Realistic, Long-Term Goals

14. Impulsivity

15. Irresponsibility

16. Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own Actions

17. Many Short-Term Marital Relationships

18. Juvenile Delinquency

19. Revocation of Conditional Release

20. Criminal Versatility

Psychopathy and crime:




Psychopathy is implicated in a disproportionate amount of serious repetitive crime and violence
Psychopaths are more criminally active throughout much of their life span than are other offenders (Hare, 1991; Hare, Strachan, & Forth, 1993)

Psychopaths generally more violent than non-psychopaths; 97% psychopaths v. 74% non-psychopaths received at least one conviction for violent crime (Hare, 1981)

Inmates with high PCL scores much more likely to have been convicted for a violent offense that with low PCL scores (Hare & McPherson, 1984)

Mean number of charges per-year-free for violent offenses was 3X higher for psychopaths than nonpsychopaths; mean number of charges per-year-free was 5.06 v. 3.25 for nonpsychopaths (Hare & Jutai, 1983)

Psychopaths are more likely to engage in a variety of different types of aggressive acts than are nonpsychopaths (Hare & McPherson, 1984)

PCL correlated significantly with global ratings of institutional violence (Hare & McPherson, 1984)

Wong (1984) compared psychopaths (PCL above 30) with nonpsychopaths (PCL less than 20) and found that (1) psychopaths committed more than twice as many offenses per-year-free, (2) psychopaths committed almost 9x the number of institutional offences, (3) psychopaths had their first contact with the law at an earlier age, and (4) psychopaths engaged in significantly more threatening behavior and acts of violence

PCL-R scores have been found to correlate significantly with (1) number of prior violent offenses, (2) number of prior nonviolent offenses, (3) number of prison terms served, and (4) months spent in prison (Hart & Hare, 1989)

Serin (1991) found that psychopaths were more than twice as likely to have used a weapon, threats, or instrumental aggression, both inside and outside of prison

Some evidence that the antisocial and criminal activities of at least some male psychopaths decrease in frequency and severity with age; Hare, McPherson, & Forth (1988) reported that the criminal activities of male psychopaths were more extensive than those of other persistent offenders until age 35-40 and then they sharply decreased; age related changes more dramatic for nonviolent than violent offenses (violent offending remained steady whereas nonviolent offending decreased)

PCL-R scores have also been used to predict (as opposed to post-dict criminal behavior and recidivism) and PCL-R tends to make a significant contribution to these prediction over and above relevant criminal history and demographic variables

When using PCL-R scores to predict who will fail on parole or mandatory supervision, psychopaths not only violated the condition of release faster than nonpsychopaths but they also received more suspensions and presented more supervisory problems during the release period (Hart, Kropp, & Hare, 1988)

When divided into H, M, and L groups using the PCL-R, there was a positive relationship between group membership and violating the conditions of release (the percentage of criminals in each of these groups to violate the conditions of release was highest for H, then M, then L). Similarly, the probability of remaining out of prison for one year (survival analyses) was highest for L and then decreased for M, and even more for H (Hart, Kropp, & Hare, 1988)

Psychopaths tend to have a greater chance of failing on parole or mandatory supervision and they tend to fail at a faster rate than nonpsychopaths [emphasis added] (Serin, Peters, & Barbaree, 1990)

PCL-R scores appear to make significant contributions in predicting violent outcomes (Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1991) (some studies have found that it predicts better than criminal history and demographic variables and other risk assessment instruments-Serin, Peters, & Barbaree, 1990)

Rice, Harris, & Quinsey (1990) found that the PCL-R scores were predictive of post-release sexual and violent offenses and that a combination of PCL-R scores and phallometric measures of sexual arousal was as effective at predicting sexual offenses than was a battery if demographic, psychological, and criminal history variables

Psychopathy and violence:



Psychopathy is a robust predictor of violence and violent recidivism in offenders-even among mentally disordered offenders, where the base rate of psychopathy is relatively low
Psychopaths tend to engage in instrumental (calculated) violence, as opposed to expressive (affective, catathymic) violence. Psychopaths tend to threaten strangers with weapons and to be motivated by vengeance, retribution, or money. Nonpsychopaths tend to batter, sexually assault, or use weapons against female relatives (spouses, daughters), and are motivated by anger, jealousy, or sexual arousal

Psychopaths tend not to be specialized sexual offenders; they are criminally versatile. However, rapists may be more psychopathic than other types of sexual and nonsexual offenders, and psychopathy is associated with recidivism among rapists

Even while incarcerated or institutionalized, psychopaths commit more violent misconducts than do nonpsychopaths

And more on treatment of psychopathy:



There have been few controlled studies of treatment response in well-defined groups of psychopaths. However, milieu therapy frequently has been recommended as the treatment of choice for psychopathy.
In recent studies evaluating the effectiveness of intensive milieu therapy programs for incarcerated or institutionalized offenders, psychopaths showed less motivation, effort, and improvement in treatment than did nonpsychopaths; psychopaths were also more likely to have multiple, serious, or violent security-related problems during treatment and to terminate treatment prematurely.

After treatment, psychopaths have a higher rate of general and violent recidivism than do nonpsychopaths; there is some evidence that milieu therapy may even increase the recidivism rate of psychopaths[emphasis added]Source:
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~pzapf/classes/PY761/Week%207%20Notes.htm


Putting legal issues in the hands of politicians is probably not a good idea if you ask me. They do what's popular, not what ought to be done. The judges on the other hand aren't up for re-election in November, so clearly they are the better party to make decisions about sentencing. MMS laws waste money, they are unfair, and in my opinion, they constitute cruel and unusual punishment, which is expressly forbidden in the US Constitution.Legal issues are always in the hands of politicians, because it is politicans who control the content of the criminal law (which is almost entirely statutory, apart from the common law offense of contempt of court) and of sentencing rules. If the legislature can proscribe conduct as illegal, why can't it also set out sentencing rules (including MMS rules) regarding the punishment of that conduct? It can and does, MMS is simply the counterpart to statutory maximum limits on sentences.

Without going into the case law, incidentally, the legal standard for determining that punishment is 'cruel and unusual' in the US is very stringent. The death penalty per se has explictily been deemed not to be 'cruel and unusual' on this test, so one would not expect MMS do be deemed 'cruel and unusual' anytime soon. You are, of course, entitled to your own differing opinion.

In any event, while we appear destined to disagree on this issue, I am satisfied the evidence in support of my position is fairly strong.

JoeDas
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 07:30 AM
According to "The characteristics of a psychopath" that you provided, psychopaths include people who are arrogant, liars, lazy people, people who don't think things through, people who are "fake", and others. First of all, I'd bet that most people in society as a whole would fit into one or more of those characteristics, and so by those standards, most people are psychopaths. So it might not be so significant that 50-60% of prisoners are psychopaths.


Here is an excerpt from a website describing a 1998 survey of the prison population in England and Wales (note; the terms 'psychopathy' and 'antisocial personality disorder' tend to be used synonymously, although APD focuses on some specific conduct criteria, whilte psychopathy focuses more on general disposition)

The most prevalent personality disorder was antisocial personality disorder which was found in 63% of male remand prisoners, 49% of sentenced prisoners and 31% of female prisoners.Source: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/green/s-off-05.ht
So what is the conclusion here, is it that persons with antisocial personality disorder are unable to change and deserve only to be punished? It's one matter to have a high rate of recidivism, it's another matter altogether to interpret this high rate of recidivism as proof that convicts are unable to change.



The characteristics of a psychopath (known as the PCL criteria for psychopathy)
...
Psychopaths tend to have a greater chance of failing on parole or mandatory supervision and they tend to fail at a faster rate than nonpsychopaths This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, as it is common sense that people with the sorts of personalities outlined in the 20 points in your previous post would be more likely to commit crimes. But this doesn't prove that psychopaths are unable to change, that no attempt should be made to get them to change, and that we shouldn't give convicts another chance to change. We really shouldn't make it a policy to throw everyone and their cousin in jail and not let them out. That runs counter to the philosophy of liberty and free society that the USA was founded upon

A free society is something to absolutely strive for, and a police-state/prison-state is something to absolutely avoid



In any event, while we appear destined to disagree on this issue, I am satisfied the evidence in support of my position is fairly strong.You provide solid evidence to back up your claim that so-called psychopaths are more likely to be repeat offenders and are less likely to reform, but I don't think the studies that you referenced support the claim that "these people definitely can't reform so rehabilitation is pointless". It is only natural that people with more criminal-oriented personalities will be repeat criminals, but this does not inherently mean that people with criminal-oriented personalities absolutely cannot change.

I guess more than anything it's a question of worldview: Should the state be an institution that holds a bludgeon over the heads of the people involved or potentially involved in criminal behavior in order to protect those people who are not and will not be involved in criminal behavior? Or should the state be kinder and gentler? Or is the "kinder and gentler" model a fool's dream and destined to failure because of human nature?

I like "kinder and gentler" model, whereas it appears you and most of those who have posted in this thread favor the "bludegon" model

Telperion
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 04:39 PM
I guess more than anything it's a question of worldview: Should the state be an institution that holds a bludgeon over the heads of the people involved or potentially involved in criminal behavior in order to protect those people who are not and will not be involved in criminal behavior? Or should the state be kinder and gentler? Or is the "kinder and gentler" model a fool's dream and destined to failure because of human nature?

I like "kinder and gentler" model, whereas it appears you and most of those who have posted in this thread favor the "bludegon" model
That appears to sum up the difference between our positions, although I prefer to think of it as the sword of justice, rather than a "bludgeon".

Northern Paladin
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 08:46 PM
I believe Criminality like all behaviors is Genetic. That would make it very hard to change if changeable at at all, as you can't change someone's Genetic Predisposition for a behavior.

Blacks have the highest frequency of Criminality. 1/3 Blacks has been in Prison and 1/2 Blacks will go to Prison sometime in their life. While the frequency of Criminality is much less in Whites and even more so in East Asians.

JoeDas
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 09:01 PM
I believe Criminality like all behaviors is Genetic. That would make it very hard to change if changeable at at all, as you can't change someone's Genetic Predisposition for a behavior.If criminal behavior is genetic (i.e. inherited), then why are no Whites today heavily involved in criminal behavior, whereas many groups of Whites were heavily involved in crime decades ago? Remember that Chicago was renowned for its rampant crime and gang activity long before blacks started settling there in large numbers.



Blacks have the highest frequency of Criminality. 1/3 Blacks has been in Prison and 1/2 Blacks will go to Prison sometime in their life. While the frequency of Criminality is much less in Whites and even more so in East Asians.I think it is: "1 out of every 3 black males will go to jail at some point in his life". Either way, do you think that the reason for the difference between Black, White, and Asian incarceration rates is genetic? That is to say, if all else were equal, do you think Blacks would still be going to jail more often than others?

Oskorei
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 10:00 PM
The main reason not to apply capital punishment is the serious risk that the wrong person is sentenced. In a perfect world I'd be pro-death sentences, but this is not a perfect world and innocent people would get killed for crimes someone else did.

And this talk about "I'm only for torture/capital punishment in a N-S state, since only then would the legal system be good". I think there is a serious fault in logic here, and it goes like this: "I'm a good guy. I would never make bad sentences or make bad laws if I had power. -> I'm NS. -> Hence, an NS state would never make bad sentences or make bad laws." But sadly, the laws of politics and nature DOES apply to NS states too, no matter how good guys you are. There will be corruption if there is a possibility, laws will be used to harm political enemies and so on.

Telperion
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 03:11 AM
The main reason not to apply capital punishment is the serious risk that the wrong person is sentenced. In a perfect world I'd be pro-death sentences, but this is not a perfect world and innocent people would get killed for crimes someone else did.

That's a valid concern, of course. The alternative does involve imprisoning serious offenders for life, though, which amongst other things is a very expensive proposition.

What is your opinion of the current system in Sweden, if I may ask? (Bearing in mind that it doesn't have the death penalty, and I assume takes a rehabilitative rather than a punitive approach to convicted criminals.)

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 05:11 AM
The main reason not to apply capital punishment is the serious risk that the wrong person is sentenced. In a perfect world I'd be pro-death sentences, but this is not a perfect world and innocent people would get killed for crimes someone else did.

And this talk about "I'm only for torture/capital punishment in a N-S state, since only then would the legal system be good". I think there is a serious fault in logic here, and it goes like this: "I'm a good guy. I would never make bad sentences or make bad laws if I had power. -> I'm NS. -> Hence, an NS state would never make bad sentences or make bad laws." But sadly, the laws of politics and nature DOES apply to NS states too, no matter how good guys you are. There will be corruption if there is a possibility, laws will be used to harm political enemies and so on.

If Laws aren't made to "Harm" Political Enemies how will Order be kept?
If anyone can Critize the Government with Impunity how will that Government retain it's Power?
In fact a State can not exist without Terror. Terror is what gives a State it's Stability.

NS Germany sent Communists to Concentration Camps, and they did so for a Noble purpose. The Communist Ideal of "We are all Equal" threatened to "Corrupt" the Purity of the German Race.

What do you mean by Corruption? Corruption is part of Human Nature. In every Human Government Corruption is inevitable. The difference between a good Government and a Bad one is the Good Government keeps Corruption "in check".

From your post I get the impression that you are somewhat effected by Modern Swedish Libertine Humanitarianism. Not to mention that you are Idealistic to a fault.

If Human Nature was Purely Good and Benevolent than there would be no needs for Laws or Punishments. But Obviously that is not the Case Humans have a Propensity for being Vile,Selfish,Corrupt and Cruel.

Oskorei
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 06:29 AM
That's a valid concern, of course. The alternative does involve imprisoning serious offenders for life, though, which amongst other things is a very expensive proposition.

What is your opinion of the current system in Sweden, if I may ask? (Bearing in mind that it doesn't have the death penalty, and I assume takes a rehabilitative rather than a punitive approach to convicted criminals.)
The single biggest problem with swedish justice is that anyone who was mentally ill when he commited a crime, gets treatment instead of prison. Of course they are locked up, but there is no fixed time, and as soon as they are "well" they are released. Sometimes murderers get 2-3 years as a result of this.

On the whole, our justice system is too weak. Gang-rapists get released because "they didnt understand that she was in a helpless state" and so on.

Maybe this very non-punitive approach was allright when we were an all-swedish population (since the average swede is very law-abiding and moral), but with mass-immigration this has changed.

Oskorei
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 06:38 AM
If Laws aren't made to "Harm" Political Enemies how will Order be kept?
If anyone can Critize the Government with Impunity how will that Government retain it's Power?
In fact a State can not exist without Terror. Terror is what gives a State it's Stability.

NS Germany sent Communists to Concentration Camps, and they did so for a Noble purpose. The Communist Ideal of "We are all Equal" threatened to "Corrupt" the Purity of the German Race.

What do you mean by Corruption? Corruption is part of Human Nature. In every Human Government Corruption is inevitable. The difference between a good Government and a Bad one is the Good Government keeps Corruption "in check".

From your post I get the impression that you are somewhat effected by Modern Swedish Libertine Humanitarianism. Not to mention that you are Idealistic to a fault.

If Human Nature was Purely Good and Benevolent than there would be no needs for Laws or Punishments. But Obviously that is not the Case Humans have a Propensity for being Vile,Selfish,Corrupt and Cruel.
I wasnt thinking of the treatment of German communists (very few of those were killed while in concentration, it was rather a preemptive measure to avoid rebellion). I was thinking of the murder and imprisonment of German NS by other NS, using the State (Roehm and his followers, the Conservative Revolutionary wing, Niekish, occult racists). We are both quite outspoken, and if we were living in an NS state that had very far-reaching power over the life and death of its citizens, we would both be living dangerously... I doubt that any of us would be Fuhrer, and our opinions would probably be regarded as a threat by any Fuhrer.

I dont think I am Idealistic by pointing out that the laws of human nature and society also apply in an NS state, rather I think I am Realistic by doing this. This is why it is important that we mix a racialist system with a system of personal and community freedom (after all, this IS the Germanic tradition).

Awar
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 06:44 AM
Maybe this very non-punitive approach was allright when we were an all-swedish population (since the average swede is very law-abiding and moral), but with mass-immigration this has changed.

Yeah, that's the bottom line, for Sweden.
Such laws would be OK if Sweden was nationally pure, it's the case with most European countries. Ex-communist and other bankrupt states are not really on this list, as economy and not blood is their main problem, but it can never hurt to have a regular nation-state.

Telperion
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:26 AM
Yeah, that's the bottom line, for Sweden.
Such laws would be OK if Sweden was nationally pure, it's the case with most European countries. Ex-communist and other bankrupt states are not really on this list, as economy and not blood is their main problem, but it can never hurt to have a regular nation-state.
The homogeniety of the society might well be an important factor in determining how severe or lenient the criminal justice system should be. I think it was Edmund Burke who suggested that where men lack an internal moral check on their behaviour, the state has to apply an external check, and the lower the general level of morality, the more harsh and opressive the state must be in order to maintain order.

If this were so, it would follow that a relatively culturally homogenous nation-state with a culture that promotes reasonable behaviour does not require as severe or punitive a set of criminal laws as a country that is very culturally heterogenous, and lacks much in the way of cohesive social bonds and common moral and ethical standards for behaviour.

Oskorei
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 08:49 PM
The homogeniety of the society might well be an important factor in determining how severe or lenient the criminal justice system should be. I think it was Edmund Burke who suggested that where men lack an internal moral check on their behaviour, the state has to apply an external check, and the lower the general level of morality, the more harsh and opressive the state must be in order to maintain order.

If this were so, it would follow that a relatively culturally homogenous nation-state with a culture that promotes reasonable behaviour does not require as severe or punitive a set of criminal laws as a country that is very culturally heterogenous, and lacks much in the way of cohesive social bonds and common moral and ethical standards for behaviour.
True. And also the criminality of different racial groups is very different. One can see this in the US. Blacks commit more murders and rapes than whites and asians and so on.