I think that when people commit crimes, they forfeit certain rights that they are granted by society.
Prison should be a punishment and a deterrent. I like that jailer in Texas (I think) who runs his jail in a very old fashioned way: Basic meals, manual labour, etc.
If inmates complain, he tells them "This isn't a hotel. If you don't like it, don't come back"
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;32519103]Prison should be a punishment and a deterrent.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't work, sorry to say.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32519210]Doesn't work, sorry to say.[/QUOTE]
Yes it does, sorry to say.
Certainly we need to start focusing more on the rehabilitation and environment part, but to make a blanket statement like "DOESN'T WORK" is wrong. The threat of imprisonment IS a deterrent for the vast majority of people.
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;32519103]I think that when people commit crimes, they forfeit certain rights that they are granted by society.
Prison should be a punishment and a deterrent. I like that jailer in Texas (I think) who runs his jail in a very old fashioned way: Basic meals, manual labour, etc.
If inmates complain, he tells them "This isn't a hotel. If you don't like it, don't come back"[/QUOTE]
Do you believe in certain inalienable human rights, yes or no
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32519304]Do you believe in certain inalienable human rights, yes or no[/QUOTE]
yes
They can't conform to our responsibilities, so why should they have our rights? The two go hand-in-hand.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32520153]They can't conform to our responsibilities, so why should they have our rights? The two go hand-in-hand.[/QUOTE]
No they don't. Rights aren't something you hand out to people you feel are deserving of them, that's priviliges.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32515938]They can't take the right away, but they can stop you from getting or holding onto firearms.[/QUOTE]
Then they're violating that right..
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32520153]They can't conform to our responsibilities, so why should they have our rights? The two go hand-in-hand.[/QUOTE]
I can't even comprehend the rational that goes behind this, because in order to make this statement, you must also say that all laws are just. Surely I can point out plenty of exemptions, or rather I can point out that humans are fallible, that laws are written by humans, and therefore laws are fallible. Let me make it this simple, you can not be in favor of free speech and at the same time against a prisoners ability to vote.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32523440]Then they're violating that right..[/QUOTE]
No, according the non aggression axiom it is just to use force against someone else if they use force against you. If someone uses force or threat of force on you, you are justified in using force back. Taking a prison's means of force away is a form of preventive action based on empirical evidence.
It would be like if someone pulled a gun on you and threated to mug you, and you managed to disarm them and detain them, this is surely justified. It is logical to assume that if you were to give that thug their gun back after a few minutes of detaining, that things wouldn't go well, you'd be considered a fool as the thug would continue the mugging. It would be best to think of prison as a longer form of detention.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32479450]That gave me a laugh. I'm a big fan of making arguments for sides I oppose so I'd love making this kind of paper. This has of course has back fired on me, like in high school when you're supposed to write an essay on the civil war glorifying the north and hating the south, I wrote my paper doing the opposite. No surprise, terrible grade on it, and I don't think the argument I made really mattered.[/QUOTE]
You had a really shitty teacher, then. While leaving room open for chance of you 'misreading' the assignment, I am certain you should have had a more positive mark, depending on the quality and persuasiveness of the paper. I've found that assignments like that are not only for you to explore the past and learn why those things happened, but for you to also explore your feelings and opinions on such decisions, and to therefore decide on which you empathize with more. There should be no right or wrong answers with history, only actions, the consequences of those actions, and your opinion of whether those actions were within your opinion range or not.
stepat201 I think you should write the essay towards your opinion on the argument, itself, rather than what pre-determined side you are supposed to take. Mainly because then it would be your paper, but also because you would need to include both sides anyways, and then indicate which side has more weight, and therefore influence towards you.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32482880]Here's a good argument for why prisoners should not be allowed to vote:
If prison is for rehabilitation for something that's seriously wrong with someone (murder, rape, etc.) wouldn't you want to rehabilitate them before returning they're right to vote?[/QUOTE]
While I understand what you are trying to say, I believe that would be under an implication that murderers or rapists have only one personal agenda, and that would be relative to whatever crime they were convicted of. A lot of things that are done are related to when they are in a particular state of mind. Maybe anger, or sadness, joy, etc. Because of that, I think that inmates should be allowed to vote by default. Honestly, if you were pissed off straight to the point that you wanted to break something, or someone, would voting really by at the top of your list? Just like if you were wanting to vote, chances are, you aren't thinking about murder or rape.
Generally, I think that prisoners should be given the ability to vote. Whether they will or not depends on the person itself.
1) I would be interested to see how politicians might modify their campaigns to achieve prison votes. What sort of campaign promises might there be? There would, in all likely-hood, be special interest groups that pop up to capitalize on the prison population.
2) Prisoners, and all other populations, count towards legislative district mapping. If a town, like Gatesville, TX, has a sizable prison, that area will carry more weight.
My opinion is my own, but 1 is slightly against, and 2 is slightly for prisoner's ability to vote.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32523634]I can't even comprehend the rational that goes behind this, because in order to make this statement, you must also say that all laws are just. Surely I can point out plenty of exemptions, or rather I can point out that humans are fallible, that laws are written by humans, and therefore laws are fallible. Let me make it this simple, you can not be in favor of free speech and at the same time against a prisoners ability to vote.
No, according the non aggression axiom it is just to use force against someone else if they use force against you. If someone uses force or threat of force on you, you are justified in using force back. Taking a prison's means of force away is a form of preventive action based on empirical evidence.
It would be like if someone pulled a gun on you and threated to mug you, and you managed to disarm them and detain them, this is surely justified. It is logical to assume that if you were to give that thug their gun back after a few minutes of detaining, that things wouldn't go well, you'd be considered a fool as the thug would continue the mugging. It would be best to think of prison as a longer form of detention.[/QUOTE]
My post was in reference to him saying that taking away people's firearms and preventing them from acquiring them WASN'T a violation of their right to bear arms, I think you missed the point of my post :v:
[QUOTE=Leintharien;32524257]You had a really shitty teacher, then. While leaving room open for chance of you 'misreading' the assignment, I am certain you should have had a more positive mark, depending on the quality and persuasiveness of the paper. I've found that assignments like that are not only for you to explore the past and learn why those things happened, but for you to also explore your feelings and opinions on such decisions, and to therefore decide on which you empathize with more. There should be no right or wrong answers with history, only actions, the consequences of those actions, and your opinion of whether those actions were within your opinion range or not.[/QUOTE]
I actually liked the teacher, but she really didn't like my essay. I wish I could find my essay, but most of it focused on the North trying to provoke war with the South through economic means. One of the points I tried to make was that most people were going to focus their essays on slavery for whatever reason, and that although slavery is obviously wrong, the South believed their slaves were their property and with this type of mentality they were fully justified in trying to protect it. Whether slaves are property or not doesn't matter, it is that the Southerns believed slaves were property, and that they were rational in trying to protect their what they considered property. But they were most justified in trying to escape the economic war the North launched on them. I don't understand how I got a bad grade focusing on the economic portion.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32524710]My post was in reference to him saying that taking away people's firearms and preventing them from acquiring them WASN'T a violation of their right to bear arms, I think you missed the point of my post :v:[/QUOTE]
Ah, I misinterpreted, but I think I at least explained it a bit for people who didn't understand. Really, what their side is arguing is that it would be wrong for disarm someone who is going to murder you. The question of how long to disarm (imprison) someone is very difficult to answer.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32523634]I can't even comprehend the rational that goes behind this, because in order to make this statement, you must also say that all laws are just. Surely I can point out plenty of exemptions, or rather I can point out that humans are fallible, that laws are written by humans, and therefore laws are fallible. Let me make it this simple, you can not be in favor of free speech and at the same time against a prisoners ability to vote.[/QUOTE]
What's not to get? They should get only the basic rights while in prison, with the others on temporary hold.
I feel I should be saying no, but yes. These people are be rehabilitated for their crimes and locked out of society for that, but I also believe allowing them that little bit of freedom on certain matters in society, especially the one which is deciding who leads the country should be allowed. I don't see why that should be a problem, fair enough they're being punished, but allowing that freedom or some sort of acceptance in society might just give them more confidence and behave better in prison. I'm not entirely sure.
[QUOTE=Erasus;32525668]I feel I should be saying no, but yes. These people are be rehabilitated for their crimes and locked out of society for that, but I also believe allowing them that little bit of freedom on certain matters in society, especially the one which is deciding who leads the country should be allowed. I don't see why that should be a problem, fair enough they're being punished, but allowing that freedom or some sort of acceptance in society might just give them more confidence and behave better in prison. I'm not entirely sure.[/QUOTE]
If prison is more like a free place to stay with free food, they'll be more likely to reoffend to get back.
The prisoners here in Norway is allowed to vote. The whole point of the prisonsystem (in Norway atleast) is based on rehabilitation. Being a productive member of society is a part of that, and voting is too.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32525642]What's not to get? They should get only the basic rights while in prison, with the others on temporary hold.[/QUOTE]
Your lack of logical justification. What you are saying is logically the same as saying
A person violated the law by smoking a joint
The person should be put in jail
The person should give up their car
The obvious issue with such reasoning is that the conclusion does not follow. The justification for taking away someone's car is irrelevant because it is based in irrationality. What does smoking a joint have to do with taking away someone's car? To make it more clear what you believe in.
Person violates law
Person can't conform to responsibilities
Person should be subject to damages unrelated to the law
Really, if you don't see the issue with that logic, I really doubt you have intelligence as there is no logic in that.
[QUOTE=CptLande;32526023]The prisoners here in Norway is allowed to vote. The whole point of the prisonsystem (in Norway atleast) is based on rehabilitation. Being a productive member of society is a part of that, and voting is too.[/QUOTE]
That is a very weak argument. What if hypothetically it is found that prison rehabilitation is completely ineffective and actually does more harm than good? Should one be in favor of prisoners voting then?
I didn't say they should have their rights permanently removed. Just for while they are an inmate - but of course there's certain rights people should always keep. If someone's in jail, why should they be able to drive anyway? It would be no use to them.
Also, nice ad hominem.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32526923]I didn't say they should have their rights permanently removed.[/QUOTE]
Has no bearing on your claim.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32526923]Just for while they are an inmate - but of course there's certain rights people should always keep. If someone's in jail, why should they be able to drive anyway? It would be no use to them.[/quote]
Yes, there certain inalienable rights, such as the right to vote, that people should always keep. I've already made a case as to why it makes sense for prisons to take away some rights, such as the right to bear arms and it is because they are being detained for an act of aggression. You can read some of my previous posts on this.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32526923]Also, nice ad hominem.[/QUOTE]
No, you don't quite understand what ad hominem is. To make the difference clear.
I say 2+2=4 and say anyone who disagrees with is illogical. That would not be ad hominem for obvious reasons.
A=B
B=C
A=C
Person claims that A is not B. I say that person is illogical. That would not be ad hominem.
There is an argument made where logic in no way follows.
A person commits a crime that requires prison time
That person should go to jail
That person should learn how to dance
I say that it is very illogical to believe that logic makes sense. That would not be ad hominem. It would be just the same as pointing out that someone disagreeing with the fact that 2+2=4 is making a claim devoid of logic.
If you're not sure why it wouldn't be ad hominem, it is because ad hominem is an argument based on personal attack. Basing an argument simply on "he's an idiot" makes no sense, but saying "he's and idiot because 2+2=4 not 5" makes it devoid of ad hominem.
You were attacking my character, not my points. Therefore it is ad hominem.
[quote]Really, if you don't see the issue with that logic, [b]I really doubt you have intelligence[/b] as there is no logic in that.[/quote]
My logic is basically this: If someone has damaged society by committing a crime against society, why exactly should they have the right to be part of it until their debt to society is paid?
[editline]28th September 2011[/editline]
The only rights that should be kept by prisoners are their basic rights. The very core human rights that can never in a right world be taken away. The rest should be stripped and given back once their debt is paid. That alone would deter a lot of people from a life of crime, leaving the rest to suffer their choice.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32528838]You were attacking my character, not my points. Therefore it is ad hominem.
My logic is basically this: If someone has damaged society by committing a crime against society, why exactly should they have the right to be part of it until their debt to society is paid?
[editline]28th September 2011[/editline]
The only rights that should be kept by prisoners are their basic rights. The very core human rights that can never in a right world be taken away. The rest should be stripped and given back once their debt is paid. That alone would deter a lot of people from a life of crime, leaving the rest to suffer their choice.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.[/QUOTE]
Because the definition of damaging and the punishments and length in which the prisoner endures that punishment is entirely arbitrary. Laws change and so do punishments. If we gave the government the ability to strip people of their rights in certain cases, we give them the right to manipulate the cases in which they can take our rights. This is one of the hugest reasons I'm against the death penalty: Even if I didn't have a moral objection to killing someone for killing someone else, giving the government the right to take the lives of their citizens if they violate laws that THEY mandate is extremely dangerous.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32528949]Because the definition of damaging and the punishments and length in which the prisoner endures that punishment is entirely arbitrary. Laws change and so do punishments. If we gave the government the ability to strip people of their rights in certain cases, we give them the right to manipulate the cases in which they can take our rights. This is one of the hugest reasons I'm against the death penalty: Even if I didn't have a moral objection to killing someone for killing someone else, giving the government the right to take the lives of their citizens if they violate laws that THEY mandate is extremely dangerous.[/QUOTE]
I'll agree that taking away the right to life is far too far. Which is why I said there needs to be protected rights.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32528838]You were attacking my character, not my points. Therefore it is ad hominem.[/quote]
I'd have no problem admitting to ad hominem if I made one, but I didn't.
"Really, if you don't see the issue with that [I]logic[/I], I really doubt you have intelligence as there is no logic in that."
The subject is your logic, your point. It would be the same as saying
"Really, if you don't see the issue with that saying 2+2=5, I really doubt you have intelligence as there is no logic in that."
[quote]My logic is basically this: If someone has damaged society by committing a crime against society, why exactly should they have the right to be part of it until their debt to society is paid?[/quote]
The issue with this is that crimes committed are not crimes against society, but rather crimes against individuals. To past what I said a few pages back.
To vote you must belong to society
Prisoners don't belong to society
Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote
The issue is with the first premise is citizenship is typically required to vote. Even if the first premise were true, through what mean would government have to verify that a citizen did belong to society? The likely answer would be citizenship. If the reasoning is made more correct.
To vote you must be a citizen
Prisoners aren't citizens
Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32528838]The only rights that should be kept by prisoners are their basic rights. The very core human rights that can never in a right world be taken away. The rest should be stripped and given back once their debt is paid. That alone would deter a lot of people from a life of crime, leaving the rest to suffer their choice.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.[/QUOTE]
Again, it only makes logical sense to strip people of the rights that they are likely to use to harm harm others. In the case of drunk drivers, they lose their ability to drive many times because they keep driving drunk. In the case of those who use violent prison offenders, they shouldn't be allowed weapons. It gets a bit more complex though because you can't allow non violent prisoners weapons because the violent ones are likely to steal them or whatever. The punishment should fit the crime, and voting rights has nothing to do with crime.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32528838]My logic is basically this: If someone has damaged society by committing a crime against society, why exactly should they have the right to be part of it until their debt to society is paid?
[editline]28th September 2011[/editline]
The only rights that should be kept by prisoners are their basic rights. The very core human rights that can never in a right world be taken away. The rest should be stripped and given back once their debt is paid. That alone would deter a lot of people from a life of crime, leaving the rest to suffer their choice.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.[/QUOTE]
"Why not?" can be used for [I]anything[/I]. The fundamental idea is people have rights, and we restrict those rights to prevent harm that would otherwise occur. For example, allowing criminals to go loose would allow them to continue committing crimes. We cease holding them (hypothetically, anyway) when they are no longer likely to commit the crime, or the amount of time served is seen as otherwise sufficient.
What harm does allowing them to vote cause?
Prison isn't an effective deterrence, and adding more punishments isn't going to make fewer people commit crimes. We see this in America where, despite the longer typical sentences, we have a dramatically greater number of people in jail than other countries.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;32529708]We see this in America where, despite the longer typical sentences, we have a dramatically greater number of people in jail than other countries.[/QUOTE]
You have more people in jail because people are staying longer, what's so hard to understand about that? If less people are leaving of course you will have more in jail.
Plus, the prisons are still far too "nice" to the prisoners, in general. Of course people will not care if they get a long sentence if it is an enjoyable stay.
[editline]29th September 2011[/editline]
If prisoners hate prison, chances are they will try their best not to end up back in it when they are released. Only giving them their basic, core rights would make it a horrible stay in prison and therefore they would never want to go back.
I think prisoners should have the right to vote on all issues that do not concern Taxation and Levies, because they will not pay taxes while incarcerated.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32536471]You have more people in jail because people are staying longer, what's so hard to understand about that? If less people are leaving of course you will have more in jail.
Plus, the prisons are still far too "nice" to the prisoners, in general. Of course people will not care if they get a long sentence if it is an enjoyable stay.
[editline]29th September 2011[/editline]
If prisoners hate prison, chances are they will try their best not to end up back in it when they are released. Only giving them their basic, core rights would make it a horrible stay in prison and therefore they would never want to go back.[/QUOTE]
Do [B]you[/B] think our prisons are "too nice"?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32537866]Do [B]you[/B] think our prisons are "too nice"?[/QUOTE]
I haven't seen your prisons personally, but I'm pretty sure they are.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32536471]You have more people in jail because people are staying longer, what's so hard to understand about that? If less people are leaving of course you will have more in jail.
Plus, the prisons are still far too "nice" to the prisoners, in general. Of course people will not care if they get a long sentence if it is an enjoyable stay.
[editline]29th September 2011[/editline]
If prisoners hate prison, chances are they will try their best not to end up back in it when they are released. Only giving them their basic, core rights would make it a horrible stay in prison and therefore they would never want to go back.[/QUOTE]
The longer sentences don't explain such a vast difference. And if the long sentences were an effective deterrent, you would expect it to make a net reduction, no? Rather than the highest overall rates of incarceration of any country.
Our prisons are "nice"?! What!? Maybe compared to being tossed in a hole after being beaten senseless by police, sure, but I really doubt that's what you're trying to compare it to.
Please offer any evidence of the following that closely relate to your arguments:
Prisons an effective deterrent in countries where the prisons are anything from worse than the US to outright inhumane.
People don't dislike being in prisons as they currently are.
People would dislike being in prison with more rights taken away (that is, the remaining rights you feel they shouldn't have are the only thing keeping them from hating the place)
Countries that don't abandon human rights (other than freedom) in their justice systems have worse crime rates (say, Norway).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
