Video Games Banned from Prison

[absolut_mac]

Before the comments of you got what you deserved start coming in I was given a 6 month sentence for not having a firearms permit. I had one though it had been expired for 15 days due to a typo on the actual permit by the issuing agency. I was arrested the day I went in to renew the permit. Which according to all the dates on the paperwork I had was still 5 1/2 months away. The judge said that although it was a clerical error, it did not change the fact that I had no weapons permit for those 15 days. Think what you will.

Sorry about that. Judges like that are morons who should be removed. Judges need to have intelligence, compassion and most importantly, common sense when they interpret and apply the law.

FYI we had one like that here in California who was promptly removed by the voters when they had the opportunity to - Rose Bird - she never met a criminal who was guilty, or who deserved to be punished, regardless of how heinous the crime.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

isnt everyone in prison innocent LOL

As long as money can move mountains in the legal system, I am afraid there are many more truly innocent people in jail/prison than we would like to think.

 

[QCassidy352]

They should remove all luxuries from prisons, including gyms and card games. They should be served only the bare minimum of food, clothes, hygienic supplies, etc. Make prison life so boring and uncomfortable that non-life term inmates understand that it doesn't pay to commit crimes. The pain of living in prison is an effective deterrent against committing crimes. People soon wise up.

See, you might think so, but you're wrong. The reason is that people who commit crimes usually either do so in the heat of the moment (in which case they are not thinking about the consequences), don't think they'll get caught, or feel that they have no choice and have to risk it anyway. Punishments have been varyingly harsh and inhumane without history, never with much real effect of the amount of crimes committed.

If you want to stop crime, change the social conditions that breed criminals, don't build more prisons.

 

[QCassidy352]

You want examples of the ACLU filing frivolous law suits, or more specifically filing law suits that some prison sentences are *cruel and unusual punishment*? Either way, I'm sure that a google search will find no shortage of either.

Personally I have no problem with prisoners expecting three clean reasonably healthy meals a day in a reasonably safe environment. From there they should then be divvied up into the severity of their crimes. Those that have a possibility to be reformed, should receive the appropriate counseling etc.

But violent repeat offenders who are a danger to society - Charles Manson, Ted Bundy types - should receive no such luxury and should be subject to harsh manual labor as punishment for their crimes until they die in prison. The key word being punishment.

Of course others probably disagree with me, and they are, of course, entitled to their opinion. I honestly don't think that there is only one correct way to deal with prisoners in situations like that.

In fact, the history of prisoners and their treatment is virtually always changing, from prison to prison and even country to country as society tries to deal with this seemingly insurmountable problem.

As a future lawyer for the ACLU, I'd really like some evidence here. You made the claims; you back them up. Don't tell us to do a google search to prove your point; if you have a point, then you should have the proof.

Or perhaps you're going off a) reputation, b) what others have said, c) a fundamental misuderstanding of the organization and what it does? Prove me wrong; find some evidence to back up your claims.

 

[nef919]

Education/Rehab

One one the biggest problems I had was with the way they qualified people for the different programs. Most programs that were offered were vocational types. Plumbing, woodworking etc... Problem was you needed to have a long sentence and have other documents which were extremely difficult to obtain with the restrictions placed on prisoners. I guess I'm getting off the point of the tread. Sorry. I had some preconceived notions about the penal system before my incident. Let me tell you that these have change in some respects and were reaffirmed in others. Bottom line for me is that the prison system needs to be rethought. While we do need a way to punish the law breakers, not all people will respond to encarceration in the same way. In my short stay (6 months) I was moved to 3 different prisons. I spoke to many prisoners as my case was on the local news and I was recognised. In that time I met 2 people that were deterred from a repeat offense. I saw more than a few innocents turn to hardened criminals with 4 of them receiving a second sentence while in prison 4 for murder and 11 for drugs. 2 weeks before my release the entire inmate population was given a urinalysis. 94% of the inmates tested positive for drugs. Over 80% for heroin. Crap I'm rambling again. Prison sucks. There has to be a better way of evaluating individuals and selecting a suitable punishment from there. I honestly have no answer, but know that the current system does not work.

 

[absolut_mac]

As a future lawyer for the ACLU, I'd really like some evidence here. You made the claims; you back them up. Don't tell us to do a google search to prove your point; if you have a point, then you should have the proof.

I have absolutely nothing to prove to anyone. If you do a meaningful search, the facts will speak for themselves.

My advice to you would be that you should do that kind of research anyway before you decide to work for them. It really is in your own best interests to check out any job or organisation before deciding if that's what you'd really like to do. You never know, once armed with all the facts - the key words being *all the facts*, and not hearsay - you just might change your mind.

 

[Lacero]

See, you might think so, but you're wrong. The reason is that people who commit crimes usually either do so in the heat of the moment

Sorry, that's just an excuse for a persons' decision to act criminally. People fearful of harsh prison life simply will not get themselves into a situation that propagates into unmitigated criminal activity. If people wised up and removed themselves from situation in the heat of the moment, there would be no reason to commit crimes. Im sorry I think that is just a cop-out.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I have absolutely nothing to prove to anyone. If you do a meaningful search, the facts will speak for themselves.

My advice to you would be that you should do that kind of research anyway before you decide to work for them. It really is in your own best interests to check out any job or organisation before deciding if that's what you'd really like to do. You never know, once armed with all the facts - the key words being *all the facts*, and not hearsay - you just might change your mind.

The reason you were asked to back up with links or something to back up your claim is that you claimed as fact, not your opinion.

Over on the Political Forum here on MR, we are asked to be able to back-up our statements of fact, otherwise label them as opinion. Yes, there is a fine line between the two at times.

In regards to searching. As you know the quality of the search is dependent on the terms of the search, and the validity of the sites that you choose to base your facts on. So in terms of the "facts" that you mention about the ACLU, it would be helpful to the understanding of the general discussion if you were to provide some links to back up your assertions about the ACLU.

 

[apple2991]

I have absolutely nothing to prove to anyone. If you do a meaningful search, the facts will speak for themselves.

Actually, you do. That is, if you want to post controversial claims on a public forum and have anybody listen to what you say at all. If you don't support your claims, however, not only is it quite weak, but people will very soon stop listening to what you have to say at all. And you may not care if nobody listens to what you have to say, but since you post on a public message board, one has to assume that you do care.

If the "facts" are so obvious and conclusive, why don't you just give us a few of them? You can Google for the results you want better than we can anyway, since you seem intent on being the only person here who has any idea what you're talking about.

I am not saying your assertion was wrong, just wondering why even bother to give it if you don't care enough to give ANY kind of support. Is it laziness, or just plain fear?

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I am not saying your assertion was wrong, just wondering why even bother to give it if you don't care enough to give ANY kind of support. Is it laziness, or just plain fear?

Thank you, you put it very well, where I had not.

 

[absolut_mac]

Actually, you do.

Actually, I don't have to do anything of the sort. If it's important to him, he'll do his own research. When he does, it won't take him more than a few minutes to see whether I was speaking the truth or not. Ditto for anyone else who feels the same way that he does.

The reason you were asked to back up with links or something to back up your claim is that you claimed as fact, not your opinion.

I honestly don't care whether people believe me or not, because I do know what the facts are, and when these are not so clear cut, I still make an effort to find out what the real truth is to the best of my ability. If other people are too lazy to do the work, I certainly am not going to do their homework for them.

Obviously there are some instances in which the true facts are never really known, or as in this particular instance, where there isn't only one correct way to deal with this sad situation.

But, just to show you that I do try to be fair, here is one instance of the ACLU filing a frivolous law suit which impacted on my life directly. And no, I'm not posting any links, you can do your own search, but I'll give you enough info to start.

Remember California's recall petition to dethrone Governor Gray Davis? The ACLU tried every which way to scuttle this recall effort - essentially defying the will of Californian votes and our state laws too. Finally it came down to their saying that the voting machines in some areas - mainly those who might vote for Gray - were too complicated to be considered reliable and that Californians were too dense to use them. Of course they neglected to mention that these same machines were quite satisfactory in order to get Gray into office, but were now unacceptable seeing as these same machines might get him kicked out.

To cut an exceedingly long story short, the ACLU and the state had to present their opposing points of view to the California Supreme court for a final decision. The ACLU lawyers were almost laughed off the floor because of their poor argument and even worse presentation. Needless to say, it's not very often that these mostly left leaning Supreme Court justices vote unanimously, but in this instance they did. And the rest, as they say, is history. Of course one might argue that the ACLU's law suit was not frivolous at all. Well, all I can say, is that all of California's Supreme Court justices certainly thought that the ACLU's case had zero merit, i.e. a frivolous law suit.

Now do your own homework if you want more, I've already laid the ground work for you. Happy hunting, because you should easily find tons of reading material out there

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I have some of "Lisa's Tiger Rock" if anyone needs one; I'll even give it away free.

Or did I miss the point of the example?

 

[absolut_mac]

I have some of "Lisa's Tiger Rock" if anyone needs one; I'll even give it away free.

??????

Or did I miss the point of the example?

You wanted an example of the ACLU filing frivolous law suits, I gave you one, what more do you want?

You are the perfect example of why I prefer not to give examples. Whatever I say won't satisfy you. Whether I give one or one thousand examples you still won't be satisfied. Open minded people don't require examples, unless they really have made an effort to find the relevant info and came up blank. But that obviously doesn't apply in this particular instance.

As I mentioned earlier, if it's important enough to you, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Just don't expect others to do your homework for you.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

absolut, the discussion of the validity of ACLU lawsuits is best taken over into the Political Forums.

I and others apparently misunderstood your "references" about the ACLU having to do with prison reform; it now appears you were looking at the broader work of the ACLU.

Again, if you want to post a topic over in the Political Forums on the rights or wrongs of the ACLU in general, I will be happy to comment there.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

??????

Lisa's Tiger Rock is from a Simpsons episode, in which Lisa explains that the rock in her hand keeps tigers away, and since there were no tigers around it was proof that the rock worked.

 

[absolut_mac]

I and others apparently misunderstood your "references" about the ACLU having to do with prison reform; it now appears you were looking at the broader work of the ACLU.

No, I was referring to both, but I gave that particular example as it was first hand knowledge to me.

I do know of quite a few law suits that the ACLU has filed because they deemed certain prisons and prison sentences as *cruel and unusual punishment*, but fortunately I don't have first hand knowledge of them.

And there I agree with you, let's drop the ACLU from this thread