BF2S Forums Inmate hunger strike

Move to China. Problem solved.

lowing wrote:

compared to the begging and pleading by innocent people not to be hurt or killed

Because all inmates are imprisoned for hurting and killing.

Remember, short of unbreakable life sentences, these guys are going to be released someday. Would you rather they exit prison meaner and more hateful than when they'd arrived?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Move to China. Problem solved.

lowing wrote:

compared to the begging and pleading by innocent people not to be hurt or killed

Because all inmates are imprisoned for hurting and killing.

Remember, short of unbreakable life sentences, these guys are going to be released someday. Would you rather they exit prison meaner and more hateful than when they'd arrived?

Really? I gotta leave the US to find criminals that are actually punished for their crimes? Well then, I guess now you know what part of the problem is.

Hmmm,"A handful of inmates who live in Pelican Bay State Prison's windowless, sound-proof 6-foot-by-10-foot isolation cells say they are ready to remain on the hunger strike until they die, or until officials at the facility agree to their demands." <----I wonder if you think these guys were in isolation for jay walking...

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Rehabilitation teaches impulse control, among other things. Sit in on a drug rehab group some day.

Impulse means done without thinking. If they do not have the capacity to think about their victims, or the consequences for their actions, then they certainly do not have the capacity to think about what they learned in fuckin rehab. Maybe the reason there are so many criminals going back to jail or back on the crack pipe or back in the bottle after "rehab"? Maybe?

LOL

Rehab teaches people to understand the consequences of their actions, among other things.

I thought that was pretty simple and obvious, but, well, y'know...

Obviously you missed the percentage of how many people fail rehab, and I couldn't care less if you went back a page or 2 and found it., cuz well, y'know.....

Jaekus wrote:

Well I found the post. Rehab is still a better option than executing 1/4 of the prison population.

Oh yes, a 95-100% failure rate is well worth the time and money. But then again you are a fan of welfare, so what else could you expect.

Oh and if  1/4th of the prison population is on death row, I am all for getting on with it.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-10 15:51:15)

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Well I found the post. Rehab is still a better option than executing 1/4 of the prison population.

Oh yes, a 95-100% failure rate is well worth the time and money. But then again you are a fan of welfare, so what else could you expect.

Oh and if  1/4th of the prison population is on death row, I am all for getting on with it.

Fan of welfare, LOL.

You're so accurate with your comments. Pure genius.

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Oh yes, a 95-100% failure rate is well worth the time and money. But then again you are a fan of welfare, so what else could you expect.

Oh and if  1/4th of the prison population is on death row, I am all for getting on with it.

Fan of welfare, LOL.

You're so accurate with your comments. Pure genius.

As are you with insisting that a failure rate of 95-100% is worth spending money on, I assume thinking it works?.

We aren't talking drug and alcohol rehab, derp.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/curr … di112.aspx

Quotes from the downloadable pdf document:

In the United Kingdom, James McGuire reviewed 10 meta-analytic studies conducted between 1985 and 1996, based on a cumulative sample of over 50,000 offenders. McGuire (1998) noted that all of these studies (of rehabilitation programs) reported positive effect sizes (+0.10 to +0.36) in recidivism (i.e. those who have attended programs reoffend 10 to 36 per cent less than those who do not attend programs). McGuire argues that these effect sizes, although modest, compare favourably with the effect sizes for various pharmacological treatments (e.g. AZT or aspirin), and would prove a cost effective option for the criminal justice system.

In North America, the United States Congress commissioned a major report on the effectiveness of crime prevention programs and practices, including a review by Doris Layton MacKenzie of rehabilitation outcome studies. MacKenzie concluded that “the proportion of studies reporting positive evidence of treatment effectiveness varied from near 50% to 86%... and that rehabilitation is effective in reducing the criminal behaviour of at least some offenders” (NIJ 1997, ch 9, pp. 12-13).

*Provide Adequate and Nutritious Food – cease the practice of denying adequate food, and provide a wholesome nutritional meals including special diet meals..

A hunger strike makes sense with this demand. Meaning that if they are feeding you shit food, don't eat it.

Kmar wrote:

*Provide Adequate and Nutritious Food – cease the practice of denying adequate food, and provide a wholesome nutritional meals including special diet meals..

A hunger strike makes sense with this demand. Meaning that if they are feeding you shit food, don't eat it.

Food also affects mood, mental health, sleeping patterns etc.
I think adequate nutrition is a must for a first world country.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Fan of welfare, LOL.

You're so accurate with your comments. Pure genius.

As are you with insisting that a failure rate of 95-100% is worth spending money on, I assume thinking it works?.

We aren't talking drug and alcohol rehab, derp.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/curr … di112.aspx

Quotes from the downloadable pdf document:

In the United Kingdom, James McGuire reviewed 10 meta-analytic studies conducted between 1985 and 1996, based on a cumulative sample of over 50,000 offenders. McGuire (1998) noted that all of these studies (of rehabilitation programs) reported positive effect sizes (+0.10 to +0.36) in recidivism (i.e. those who have attended programs reoffend 10 to 36 per cent less than those who do not attend programs). McGuire argues that these effect sizes, although modest, compare favourably with the effect sizes for various pharmacological treatments (e.g. AZT or aspirin), and would prove a cost effective option for the criminal justice system.

In North America, the United States Congress commissioned a major report on the effectiveness of crime prevention programs and practices, including a review by Doris Layton MacKenzie of rehabilitation outcome studies. MacKenzie concluded that “the proportion of studies reporting positive evidence of treatment effectiveness varied from near 50% to 86%... and that rehabilitation is effective in reducing the criminal behaviour of at least some offenders” (NIJ 1997, ch 9, pp. 12-13).

Well then I am glad you think 75-90 percent failure rate is worth it. Tell me, where else do you dump money where having a 75-90 percent chance of loosing it is a good bet?

If we are not talking about drug and alcohol related crimes, and you did not want to talk about violent crimes? What crimes are left to include in those you want to cater to?

Jaekus wrote:

Kmar wrote:

*Provide Adequate and Nutritious Food – cease the practice of denying adequate food, and provide a wholesome nutritional meals including special diet meals..

A hunger strike makes sense with this demand. Meaning that if they are feeding you shit food, don't eat it.

Food also affects mood, mental health, sleeping patterns etc.
I think adequate nutrition is a must for a first world country.

What is your point here? Hy, if you are going to rape a little boy, do it in a "first world country", they got a great breakfast  lunch and dinner menu in prison... with brunch on Sundays?

I do't give a shit about there living conditions, their rehab ( although I should with what a great success it is :rolleyes") their comfort. I choose direct my attention toward their victims.

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

lowing wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

How do you lower prison populations without kicking people out that still have to do time? Could you impose other punishments for crimes instead of time behind bars?

you could actually make prison hell on earth, so bad people would be afraid to go there. You could also actually carry out the death sentence for capital crime. I mean if your only 2 choices are to let people out that do not deserve to be out, or thin the heard by punishing harsher for crime, I will take thinning the heard by punishing harsher, not less. People really need to be held accountable for their actions, if you don't, whats stopping them?

The problem with this is you would have a much higher proportion of shoot outs when you try to arrest people as they essentially have nothing to lose, if they're going to die anyway they're not going to go quietly.

Ahh so we are back to....better not piss off the criminal, no tellin' what they might do...Gotta disagree. I would prefer, better not commit a crime because prison is a mother fucker. I want them more afraid of getting caught than we are of them.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-11 03:59:33)

Jaekus wrote:

Kmar wrote:

*Provide Adequate and Nutritious Food – cease the practice of denying adequate food, and provide a wholesome nutritional meals including special diet meals..

A hunger strike makes sense with this demand. Meaning that if they are feeding you shit food, don't eat it.

Food also affects mood, mental health, sleeping patterns etc.
I think adequate nutrition is a must for a first world country.

And I wonder what intentionally and completely starving your body does to impact those things.

lowing wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

lowing wrote:

you could actually make prison hell on earth, so bad people would be afraid to go there. You could also actually carry out the death sentence for capital crime. I mean if your only 2 choices are to let people out that do not deserve to be out, or thin the heard by punishing harsher for crime, I will take thinning the heard by punishing harsher, not less. People really need to be held accountable for their actions, if you don't, whats stopping them?

The problem with this is you would have a much higher proportion of shoot outs when you try to arrest people as they essentially have nothing to lose, if they're going to die anyway they're not going to go quietly.

Ahh so we are back to....better not piss off the criminal, no tellin' what they might do...Gotta disagree. I would prefer, better not commit a crime because prison is a mother fucker. I want them more afraid of getting caught than we are of them.

So you think that raising the stakes will not lead to an escalation of violence?

Its easy to sit on the moral high ground and cast down fire and brimstone on all those below you. Doesn't improve the situation though does it? Im sure everybody agrees that punishing criminals is good, however making sentences harsher and thus filling the prisons up simply does not work. From first hand knowledge, people end up in prison for a number of years over something retarded like minor possession or fraud and end up making friends with all the native murderers, rapists, armed thieves etc. They then come out of prison with a much better knowledge of how to exploit the system and a huge underworld contact list.

How does that improve society?

It doesn't. While it is politically popular and an easy vote winner to be "tough on crime" its a load of crap and does more harm than good.