Ant. please read

[kobayashi]

I'm sure you have done this before as you seem quite expressive of your emotions and I'm sure someone has asked you.
How do you justify the use of torture in certain situations?
In which situations do you feel torture is justified?
You can choose not to respond if you choose, I was just interested in your basis for something you seem to believe so passionately in

------------------
reflective panelling

[Anthony]

Originally posted by kobayashi:
I'm sure you have done this before as you seem quite expressive of your emotions and I'm sure someone has asked you.
How do you justify the use of torture in certain situations?
In which situations do you feel torture is justified?
You can choose not to respond if you choose, I was just interested in your basis for something you seem to believe so passionately in

I'll answer you, but it'll need time and I only logged on quickly to check my mail, but please be assured; I've NEVER tortured anyone nor have I ever been asked to torture someone, it just sits comfortably in my belief structure, and after I've finished explaining, you'll understand.

Welcome to my world.

Ant.

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by Anthony:

I'll answer you, but it'll need time

cheers. take your time.

------------------
reflective panelling

[Anthony]

Right Kobayashi;

Primarily, when I mean to say that I can understand the benefits of torture, I don't mean straight-forward torture where they beat them in the cell intensively. Having said that, though, torture at the end of the day is torture.

My system came to me one day when I realised that life is more complicated than a person being a law-abider and a simple criminal, further distinctions have to be made. Why do people break the law? There are different answers for different people who have comitted different crimes, and many who are capable of rehabilitation don't deserve the same treatment as say, rapists or pedophiles. Crime born out of poverty is perfectly understandable in my opinion, and I do think most people deserve a second chance, atleast.

HOWEVER, not everyone deserves a second chance. Not everyone can be rehabilitated, and not everyone learns his or her lesson. For every hundred people you get, there must be some twenty-odd who are just plain evil and beyond rehabilitation who deserve to rot in their cells and understand the pain they have inflicted; this experience can only be given though pain.

Let me explain.

My perfect incarceration progame is thus; have a prison made out of three levels, where the different criminals should go to pay their individual debt to society and to themselves. The third level would consist of thieves and burglars, drug lords and other pedlers of illegimate businesses - people who basically acquire money or property illegaly and as a result help to corrupt society. They should be treated more or less the same way as prisoners under the 'Human Rights Act' enforced by do-gooders such as Amnesty International, whom, if you haven't noticed already, I despise immensely. They call themselves just? Let me tell you what is unjust and cruel, letting some evil madman by the name of General Augusto Pinochet free because he is 'too ill' to stand trial. Thats justice for you, a mockery of such in the name of being 'just'. What nonsense. There can NEVER be justice until the criminal is put in the shoes of his or her victim, until the person KNOWS and LEARNS of the pain he has caused; that is justice, not spending a few years in a prison where you can watch tv and have the taxpayers pay for your food and accomodation.

But I digress, the second level would be for the murderers, where people have killed. Of course, my system is not so coarse that I don't understand that there are very different kinds of murderers with equally different records, however, this IS the second level of the prison and all murderers are deprived of entertainment such as television, snooker and things of that nature. They can read if they wish, and they can work out - but they will not be provided with luxuries such as entertainment. Different murderers should be treated differently, some should even be confined for long periods of time so that they can reflect on what they have done (say someone killed an entire family for no apparent reason, thats the kind of ciminal I would confine).

Now, the first and bottom level is perhaps the nastiest one. Here, we put anyone whos' crime remotely involved harming a minor, raping an innocent or anything of the sort. It doesn't matter if they killed the victim in the end, if the person was a rapist they should spend their lives here. And I do mean forever, till the end of their days. Here, there is no parole. Here, there is no way of getting out and here there is no more 'mr. Nice guy' treatment. Some people are just born sick and, if they didn't go to some mental asylum when they were found or they pleaded insanity, it is far more efficient to transfer them to such aforementioned institutions, because this place is for those who are perfectly sane and just like to cause pain to innocent children and women.

Now, before entering this first level, the convicts will be castrated for their crimes. Oh, I'm serious. They should have thought of better things to do with their sexual organs before mistreating a woman, they should have thought of it beforehand. There might be an excuse for murder, but there is no excuse for raping or sexually assaulting anyone. To me, and I'm sure to may others, rape is far worse than murder. Rape is truly one of the worst things anyone can do to a human being, and I think poetic justice is in order. They should be castrated, I tell you. They should be castrated and put into this level for the rest of their lives where prison guards aren't so nice, where the food isn't so good, and the walls are so boring you think you might lose it. Here, I wouldn't let Amnesty International poke their do-gooder noses in at all, they can go and let some other murderer free like they usually do.
Yes, Kobayashi, I do hate rapists very much and you are right to have detected in me a particular hate for them, that is because my friend's friend was raped once. She was raped by a complete stranger, only so that this man could be given THREE years with parole, when he should have spent the rest of his life in MY prison system. Now, I only met this girl once, but she was a fine woman with a pure heart, and her life was scarred because of some bastard who had an itch he had to scratch.
I'm sorry, but put him in my first level and beat him when he doesn't cooperate, hit him when he answers back, dump him in solitary confinement when he brags about all those women he raped; treat him like the animal that he is. Perhaps by the time he meets his creator, he will have a better thing to say than 'she was gagging for it'.

Justice isn't about slapping a person's wrist and telling them to 'go to your room and think about what you've done', its about showing them what they did, showing them how they made the person they harmed feel.
Also, justice should be about efficiency, if you're of no good to society except killing and raping, you should spend your life confined away from society, it makes perfect sense.

This is what I mean when I say that torture is sometimes needed.

Ant.

[This message has been edited by Anthony (edited 01-24-2002).]

[Angela Harlem]

Ant, that really is nothing short of beautiful.

Sorry to jump in here when it isn't my discussion to do so, but I just wanted to tell you how much I liked your model. I dont want to start a discussion on death penalties here, but I want to add my biggest problem with the current jail system is the whole principle of its being. We all know that rehabilitation is limited to the staff at a correctional centre, and the individual, and quarterly/annual funding figures. I abhor the absolute lack of rehabilitation in so many cases. I mean, what IS the point? I, as a tax payer, am providing for these people. Its a token gesture, sentencing is. It makes me ill to think of it. I actually believe there is no rehabilitation for a lot of offenders, simply because of the statistics on repeats. I may not necessarily go for the death sentence in most crime, but I sure as shit do not support the prison concept. I wont go into the crimes where I see capital punishment as fit. I do not want to incur a debate on the right of human beings to impose such a decision. But just while I am on this, an offender has a right to end a life? We, as a society do not? I really think that society is very weak. We are too passive in dealing with any action that is only extreme in the fact that it is not practiced as yet. Ie the death penalty on a grander scale. All the pacifists may very well argue, I respect anyones decisions and thoughts that contradict mine. But all I want to say is that prison, and a select few executions a year DO NOT curb the criminal cycle. It is no deterrant, it is not a societal learning tool. Criminals in most cases are stupid individuals. Its the nature of crime. Current practices do so very little to assist in breaking these cycles.
So, death penalty aside, I'm all for punishment. Castration is excellent, certainly no television or recreation. No comforts of home, no internet, no hobbies. Hard labour is good, no parole should be a given.
Anyway.

[Anthony]

Gee, thanks Angela, I didn't really expect anybody to agree with me, but you never know.

Now that you mention capital punishment, I remember that I forgot to talk about that; I don't believe in capital punishment. No, not because it's immoral, or because its wrong (the lame argument that two wrongs dont make a right), I just think most people should be given a second chance in some cases, and those who don't deserve a second chance deserve to live in pain - death is being too nice to them. Death would be the easy way out.

So, capital punishment is actually quite ineffective, economically inefficient (think of the electricity bills for 'old sparkies' down in death row)and not 'just' in my category of justice.

Thanks for reading, Angela Harlem.

Ant.

[pax]

an offender has a right to end a life? We as a society do not?

Well, Angela, no, a murderer does *not* have the right to end a life. They attempted to extend a right to which they are not entitled. That's why they go to prison. I think you missed the point a bit there.


------------------
If you cannot live together in here, you cannot live together out there, let me tell ya. --Bono

You've got to cry without weeping, talk without speaking, scream without raising your voice... --Bono

[Angela Harlem]

Actually no paxetaurora. I'm not missing any point. A killer, just like anyone else has a choice to not proceed. All humans have an ability to end life (practically speaking), whoever chooses to use that, be it on their head. As a 'Right' is perhaps an unagreeable term. But that is my point. I'm not going to comment any more on the death penalty, as it wasn't the original topic. I'm not sure of exactly where I stand on it, but do think there is something wrong with the cost of keeping someone behind bars at approximately $50-$80,000 a year.

And Ant, I once heard some unbelievable stories from a prison guard about the kind of torture 3 particularly notorious criminals are getting over here. It makes me cringe when I think of it, but it nearly makes me vomit when I think of what they did to this one extremely unlucky girl.

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem:
I'm not sure of exactly where I stand on it, but do think there is something wrong with the cost of keeping someone behind bars at approximately $50-$80,000 a year.

If it's the economics which concern you, you should know that it costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.

[pax]

A killer, just like anyone else has a choice to not proceed. All humans have an ability to end life (practically speaking), whoever chooses to use that, be it on their head.

"Be it on their head." Exactly. You made my point for me. They attempted to use this faculty/abiliyty/right (or whatever you want to call it), and we as a society do not accept that. Thus, they are made to take responsibility for it.

Perhaps, as an English major, I'm just arguing semantics... but then again, semantics are very important in the language of argument, and I have seen critical thinking texts that spend entire chapters on the semantics of intellectual debate.


------------------
If you cannot live together in here, you cannot live together out there, let me tell ya. --Bono

You've got to cry without weeping, talk without speaking, scream without raising your voice... --Bono

[80sU2isBest]

Anthony, some excellent ideas there!

[kobayashi]

Well Anthony you definetely present some interesting points. I like the idea of the levelled prison system, though I disagree with you on the specific categorizations.

As a precursor let me just say that everything I am writing is completely off the cuff. I am in no way qualified to make an assessment of any incarceration system, in any classical sense, I haven't even taken a criminal law case past secondary school.

I guess my whole argument is most easily contextualized by the fact that I believe no person deserves to die, ever. I cannot see cause, reason or justification for ever taking away one's right to life. I realise many agree with this general opinion, many do not. For many individuals there are mitigating factors however that influence their decision, such as you're allusion to 'electricity bills' or other finding jusification for capital murder in rising prison costs. For me this belief is grounded in the basic principle that life is precious and grander than any human act, even the senseless murder of another.

Now on to the question at hand: the prison system. I agree with you that our current prison applications(i am assuming we are discussing north american or british prisons which are all largely the same in prinicple, though here in canada we like to let them out extra early!) have become ineffective. I am by no means a psychologist and am in no way qualified to make judgements on people's ability to be rehabilatated. I do agree with your general statements however regarding small time criminals: and no they should not enjoy much more than the ability to expand their minds in whichever way they choose through literature, invest in their own bodies through excercise or what have you within reason. They should have limited access to international news and contact with friends or family. Sentences should be generally long and drab relative to those of today. Keep in mind they are destinged to be drab if they choose not to invest in themselves.

Concerning crimes of much greater severity the first step is to obviously increase the duration of sentences and decrease contact with the outside world. Personally, and this goes hand in hand with the value of life, I would continue to allow individuals to indulge themselves within literature.

I do not believe that anyone should ever undergo state sanctioned torture. It is inhumane. I realize the actions of your candidates were equally, if not moreso, inhumane but when operating within a belief structure based in the assumption that human life is tantamount to all else such is the only option.

It is also my opinion that our prison system, like many other components of our society, has grown grossly distant from their goals and directives. For a point of reference, the aforementioned Karla Homolka(someone please correct me if I got that wrong ) has, since being incarcerated, completed a university degree of some sort from the renowned Queens University(her degree is worth more than mine!) which was paid for via tax money if I remember correctly and she recently came under parole review which, fortunately, was denied. Now for crimes such as her's there is no rehabilitation that can be accomplished which will atone for the hurt done to the victims and society(and hers were crimes that gripped the nation). The fact that she had a university degree paid for is just a miniscule example of the prison systems misdirection in my opinion. These are definetely not rights which should be bestowed upon a criminal of her nature.

Well I dunno how much of that made sense. If it was well written I suspect it might make sense to a few but enrage others, for those who are upset please speak freely. Perhaps, if my piece of writing is nonsensical as I suspect, the best thing Anthony would have gotten out of me is capitals and generally speaking proper grammar, a rarity in all my other posts

--------ooops, just realized i took out apart and left another part in that made the whole homolka thing nonsensical

Karla Homolka was the wife of Paul Bernardo. Together these 2 committed some of the most brutal and horrific crimes this nation has ever seen, and they videotaped it. They committed unspeakable acts against two young women from Southern Ontario. I believe Homolka has just been transferred to a psychiatric hospital somewhere but that is very foggy, I'm really not certain. She used to be at P4W(Prison for Women in Kingston, renowned as having horrid conditions, including many sexual assaults) Her ex-husband is in prison somewhere, where he is specifically I have no idea. The tapes which I mentioned have finally been destroyed after years of floating through the hands of police and lawyers, thankfully.

[This message has been edited by kobayashi (edited 01-25-2002).]

[sulawesigirl4]

Just wanted to pop in and compliment kobesan on his well-thought and well-written post. I agree with much of what you said.

[Angela Harlem]

"Be it on their head." Exactly. You made my point for me. They attempted to use this faculty/abiliyty/right (or whatever you want to call it), and we as a society do not accept that. Thus, they are made to take responsibility for it.

I really dont see how you came to the conclusion that I made your point for you. "Be it on their head" as in repercussion? Consequences? The punishment as an end result doesn't change that statement. As a semantics major you must agree Besides which, a knowledge of the English language, argument, and semantics does not mean a correct view.

As for the cost of an execution, I'm sure it would be high. I have no idea what dollar figures it involves, I always thought the costs increased when taking into account appeals etc. As I said, I have no idea where I stand on capital punishment. The whole prison system costs alot in taxpayer dollars. It would be great to see more directed into rehabilitation, and for those who are not able to be helped, another option. Who knows what that would be?

[Anthony]

"I guess my whole argument is most easily contextualized by the fact that I believe no person deserves to die, ever. I cannot see cause, reason or justification for ever taking away one's right to life."

Kobayashi, when did I ever say that a person deserves to die? I quite explicitly explained that I don't believe in the death penatly for the reasons of justice - it is not just to end the criminal's misery. Make him suffer, not END his suffering.

We do not differ in our respect for life, Kobayashi, I respect it almost as much as love, and I repeat; I do NOT condone the death penalty.

"I do not believe that anyone should ever undergo state sanctioned torture. It is inhumane. I realize the actions of your candidates were equally, if not moreso, inhumane but when operating within a belief structure based in the assumption that human life is tantamount to all else such is the only option."

Think about it for a moment. For what use is the present so-called 'humanised' treatment of certain convicts if it won't rehabilitate them? If it wont, for want of a better expression, 'teach them a lesson', what good is it for? What does it do? WHAT IS ITS FUNCTION? I have always been one to think that the end result justifies the means, in most circumstances. Human life is tantamount? Can you look into the eyes of the girl I spoke to you of and tell her that you value the life of her rapist just as much as hers? Speak your sense of justice to her, and we shall see how the sides will meet. Once you look into the eyes of someone who's suffering is greater than you will ever understand, your sense of justice changes, let me assure you. Its no longer as 'black' and 'white' as the modern world has made, its not about respecting human life - its about PRESERVING it.

Its about preventing things from happening, its about protecting the weak, and justice has failed to do that way too many times because of mentality and organisations such as Amnesty International holding back the cane in the name of 'justice'. Well, justice is a very relative term, you will find, and humanity just as complicated. I for one think that justice should be about efficiency and compensation (for both the victim and the ciminal), rather than making us feel good that 'we did the right moral thing to do - aren't we so full of our own self-righteousness?'

I find the mentality that we must 'restrain' ourselves in the name of sleeping at night with a clean conscience instead of helping the weak and punishing the wrong selfish as it is stupid.

I too believe that our prison systems have differed and distanced themselves from the original goals, however, we believe so to different extents. You are prepared to hold back the cane, I think that applying it sometimes is necessary.

Ant.

[This message has been edited by Anthony (edited 01-27-2002).]

[bonovista]

I believe in a study that was done awhile back, it stated that even if a sexual offender is castrated, the urge to rape is still there in his mind. So instead they will use objects to assault their victims with.

I just believe in the death penalty for rapists as well..Period.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:
If it's the economics which concern you, you should know that it costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.

I find this hard to believe.

Could you point me to figures indicating how much it costs to execute someone, and how much it costs to keep someone locked away for 20-50 years? It didn't seem to cost Dr. Jack Kevorkian a whole lot to administer lethal injections to his patients.

[Anthony]

Originally posted by bonovista:
I believe in a study that was done awhile back, it stated that even if a sexual offender is castrated, the urge to rape is still there in his mind. So instead they will use objects to assault their victims with.
I just believe in the death penalty for rapists as well..Period.

When has this ever been proven? Who, may I ask, has ever tried it?

Ant.

[bonovista]

Actually Ant. I am not disputing your ideas and views. I heartedly agree with them.

While studying law, I had done a lot of research on the subject of castration as an alternative "treatment" for sexual offenders. I would have to go back to my old law school books and find the exact case ( I believe it might have been here in Florida).

Though I have never prosecuted any offenders that have been castrated. I do believe that it's not just sexual urges that causes rape, It's the control urge they seek, which is in turn caused by the brain. Now a lobotomy might work on some of these deviants.

[bonovista]

Originally posted by Anthony:
When has this ever been proven? Who, may I ask, has ever tried it?

Ant.

Actually, in the US many inmates have sought out castration to TRY to control the need to rape. Let me try to find the story done by 60 Minutes a few years back.