The Feds claimed that guards often beat inmates and that inmated are often deproved medical care. It is wrong to deny them medical care. Inmates are humans and have rights.

but the examples they cited for brutality didn't seem that bad.

1. Guards beat to unconsciousness a man convicted of beating a 23-month old girl to death. I say GOOD. That dude beats a baby to death, and guards whack him a few times. Where's the problem? Only problem I see is the inmate woke up.

2. Guards did not act to discourage inmate attacks of sex crimes offenders. Again, neither would I.

3. Guards "retaliated without cause" against inmates who threw feces on them. without cause? How about the flying shit?

What do you think?

Matt

PS If you want to disagree with me, that is fine - I encourage it, but please don't give me that "slippery slope bullshit" - the "if we allow this, soon we'll be a fascist state" bullshit.

You beat a baby to death you should be beaten. In the Marines there was a case where a father through his three day old baby across the room and into a wall, because it would not stop crying, well the MP's arrived arrested this puke and on the way to the jail, he ended up in intensive care, they weren't sure he was going to survive.

------------------
If you run from a Marine, you will only die tired.

Seems we disagree a lot. Actually I kind of like that.

Funny - or better - peculiar, that you would call for putting human beings to sleep based on birth defects, and then invoke morality when convicted criminals are "mistreated". Convicted criminals are the oither gropup you said was draining society's resources.
Perhaps it is you who seeks to "have his cake and eat it too."

Since you apparently need me to explain this further, I advocate respect for human life, since all CAN contribute. Just because we all CAN, doesn't mean we all DO. I also believe that punishments should fit the crime. Basically, those who fail to respect another human life, have essentially forfeited much of the respect they were previously accorded. This is why we put them in a cage. Talk about a drain on resources. It costs $36,000 a year to house an inmate in New York. A convicted criminal!!

Yet you say "Morality" for them, and "death" for those woth birth defects. On one hand, "morality." Ethical treatment. On the other hand, "death". elimination from society. And you accuse me of "picking and choosing". You are spewing inconsistent trash. You either have not thought your beliefs through, or you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

In your words, "Times need to be tough but fair". Getting the crap beat out of you when you are convicted of homicide hardly seems out of line, or out of whack with my other statements.

Again, you are the one that cited two groups of non-contributors, one of which was criminals. So you are claiming that morality should be applied to criminals, while your other group should be exterminated outright, not even given the slimmest ray of hope for life. But please, you say, don't beat up a guy who killed a 23 month old.

I await your explanation on that.

I don't condone wanton disregard for convict rights. But I reject those who invoke morality when a murderer suffers and ass-beating.

Talk to me Dread.

Matt

This is a catch-22 decision for me, because on one hand, if you allow these guards to go unpunished, then that opens the gates for indiscriminate beating of prisoners for any reason.

On the other hand, I would love to personally take 45 plate and smash some heads in when I read about some of the things that happen to innocent people.

I'd go on but I just got off work and I'm fucking tired.

I do believe that guards should defend themselves (especially against flying shit attacks). But there's a difference between defending youself and attacking someone else. If you're paid to uphold the law, you have no business breaking it yourself.

JEFFRY DAHMER GOT WHAT HE DESERVED.
I hope hes in hell right getting fuked in the ass by a flamming hot pitchfork.
wait then again, he might actually
be enjoying it, that sick son of a bitch.

That goes for any other serial killer as well.

i am taking a guess that dread has a few philosophy classes this semester, and is being bashed for his beliefs or theories... matt, that is the most hypocritical statement i have seen made... ESPECIALLY after seeing your reply to dread earlier..

you both agree that not all "humans" have full rights.. matt sees it as criminals, and dread sees it as mongloid babies.

DREAD-- YOU ARE A FUCKING MO ARNT YOU. I CANT BELEIVE THAT YOU WOULD TRY TO PROTECT A CHILD MOLESTERS RIGHTS, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THEY SHOULD ALL FUCKING DIE. I WORK IN A MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON. NO I HAVE NEVER BEATEN AN INMATE THAT DIDNT THROUGH THE FIRST PUNCH, THAT IS NOT MY JOB. BUT I AM STILL INTITLED TO MY OPINION.

What the hell are you talking about?

I am saying that we all have rights.

But criminals forfeit a great deal of those rights in their criminal actions. Society agrees to that - this is why criminals are put in a cage.

The only other clain I am making is that the current societal restriction on criminal rights is insufficient. No - they should not be denied medical care. I said that above.

But I don't have a problem with the occasional beating of a convicted killer.

Let's review Bomber:

Everyone has the same rights in the beginning. That's pretty consistent. Now, some people forfeit many of those rights by committing crimes. As punishment for these crimes, they are incarcerated. While they are incarcerated, they still do have some rights: adequate medical care, etc.

With me so far?

Read the examples I cited above, from a well-known NY newspaper. I do not have a problem with those incidents, especiall #2 and #3.

Incident #1, to me, no matter how much that guy suffers, (no matter how badly his rights are infringed) he still comes out ahead.

Bomber, have you been drinking again?

now, with that said i am done being personal.
and i never would have been if you werent as well.

anyway.

in your reply you say that we all have rights, but the criminals forfeit a lot of theirs. true to a point, but not completely.
they do not give up their rights of humanity. they do not give up the right to be treated fairly and humanely. because they are convicted felons does not mean they are beating posts. if you can possibly find any documentation sayiing that criminals give up their fundamental human rights please show me. as far as i know the main right they give up is that of freedom.

my entire point was this: to me, it sounded as if you were saying that the criminals should be beaten, and should be abused (number one AND number two of your 3 examples). you stated that you thought sex crime offenders should basically have done to them anything others wanted... that is an obvious event of taking away human rights from the sex crime offenders. i personally dont fucking care what happens to them when they are in prison. beat them, kill them, do whatever.

earlier in the day i noticed you basically bashing the dread guy for the way he thought about handicapped people.

you think the same way about prisoners. i see no difference. therefor i concluded you were a hypocrite.

but of course, i am wrong.

These boys get educated, fed, clothed - they have it better then a lot of poor americans. And yet the majority STILL do take advantage of the chance to rehabilitate. The stories I hear boggle my mind - its like most of them are truly mentally disabled.

In California, CO's are not allowed to do there job properly, putting themselves and staff at risk. Internal Investigations has been at this facility since the beginning of the year and there have been more riots, staff assaults and threats then in the entire rest of the time my husband has been there. These criminals have broken laws! They have murdered, raped and injured and yet they have more rights than the staff who are guarding them. Staff is allowed to do less and less until a major incident happens (like staff getting killed) and ONLY then is some power returned. I just hope that my husband isn't the one who is injured or worse in order to turn this around.

So does it bother me when I hear stories of so called "abuse" to prisoners? Hell no. Most likely it was deserved. Personally, I think we would have a lot less crime if the punishment for the crime was to have done to them what they did to others.

Matt -- you support the rights of those born with birth defects, I applaud you for that. They are in no way responsible for their situation.

But, you are making an error when you assume that a criminal is completely responsible for his situation, as well. There are outside influences that undoubtedly affect the criminal and direct him on his path of violence. These influences can be economic, social, or genetic -- among others.

There are certain genes that predispose people to be violent, or deranged, or sexually unstable. These genetic "programs" are complex algorithms, but they cannot be ignored. Add to this propensity an unstable childhood and the effects can be horrible -- child molesters, serial killers, etc.

Their lies the hypocrisy in your argument. Genetics and environment are factors in both situations. You support the rights of one group and not the other.

Are their those who are completely responsible for their actions? I would not argue this point. But, how can we ever know the difference, or delineate the situations in which violent justice should be applied. With current knowledge, I do not believe we can.

The world is not black and white, and in this situation, I believe it is better to err on the side of restraint in punishing the guilty.

But then again, I'm a Steelers fan, so I am obviously an idiot.

Puc

Puc

shit, i think i just misspelled their about 7 times in the above post. My spellchecker is fucking with me.

My argument did nto even entertain topicxs like yours. I am not talking about whatever factoirs led to the commsission of the crime. All I said was coinvicted criminals, and then I cited three examples form a NY paper.

There are outside factors such as genetics and social factors, etc.

While those can't be ignored, I stand for holding people accountable for their actions. Sure, many criminals grew up without the support I had a t home, bu t you know what - plenty of people grew up with nothing and are doing fine.

These external factors, while they can't be discarded, certainly are not necessary conditions for criminal behavior to develop. As such, their place in our justice system should be small.

Free will could be an illusion. We could all be machines reacting with genetically programmed responses. Society then would be nothing more than the interplay of computers.

We are the Furby.

------------------
IN IRON WE TRUST.

Puc