Reply
Tue 26 Oct, 2004 07:02 am
This is a poll for a research I'm doing at the moment, just want to see what the people here think about the subject.
Do you think it should be a possibility to put 2 prisoners into one jail cell, provided that both are only "small" criminals (so no pathological murderers, and both will be released within months)?
And, if you agree with this system, do you think that the prisoners should be left the choice, or that it should be decided for them?
Thank you for your reply.
I realize that there are fiscal concerns, but, IMO each prisoner should have his own cell. Prison life is stressful enough that dealing with another human being in a tiny closed in space, to me, not very practical, or positive.
You may be missing a poll question.
YES, and the decision is up to the admistration of the prision.
I vote YES, there can be more than one to a cell, and the prisioner does not have a choice in the matter.
My bad... didn't click the "Add option" button. Could a moderator please add a third option: "Yes, and the prisoner should not have a say in the matter."
Thanks!
Justthefax wrote:You may be missing a poll question.
YES, and the decision is up to the admistration of the prision.
I vote YES, there can be more than one to a cell, and the prisioner does not have a choice in the matter.
Amen! If they did something bad enough to be sent to jail all rights should end until they have served their time.
Here in Kansas @ EDCF general pop is 2 to a cell.
Only in seg units are they 1 to a cell.
The majority of prisoners in the UK share cells, except for sex offenders and violent prisoners, and those in low security open prisons.
The purpose of prison is to rehabilitate. If you throw someone into a cage with a guy who beats their ass everyday, the rehabilitation will be hindered. So prisoners should have their own cage.
Child of Light,
The prisoner who is beating the other prisoner needs to be put in the hole. However non-violent prisoners should not be given private rooms.
They are there for punishment. Why give them luxury.
They should not be given luxury, but you have to remember, they will be released back into the wild one day.
Phoenix32890
I can't agree with you anymore.I have heard such a story that a innocent good person ,who was wrongly put in the jail,learned to be a thief in the prison from his partner.
clytsz wrote:Phoenix32890
I can't agree with you anymore.I have heard such a story that a innocent good person ,who was wrongly put in the jail,learned to be a thief in the prison from his partner.
Everyone in prison is innocent if you listen to them. If he was a good person he wouldn't of ended up becoming a thief regardless of his partner. It seems that the inmates have more rights than the victims of the crimes and it needs to stop, no more single rooms with cable tv etc. They need to pay not play. I do agree that they are also there to learn to "be released back into the wild" but why make it like camp, or a home away from home? Make them work to help pay for their meals. Make it like the real world the harder that you work the more little benefits that you get.
Most convicts at EDOC had jobs unless they were in seg. units...I advise anyone who cares to, to apply for a visitors pass at your state prison to see and experience how the convicted do live...must remember they are there AS punishment not FOR punishment..we are a civilized society :-)...
cannistershot
According to what you say,I think it is not humanism at all.
First,nobody want to be a bad guy unless he was forced by his living conditions or other complicated relations.
Second,the criminal law's legislative original purpose is not only to punish them but also to educate them in order to protect other citizens.
Third,these prisoners like us ,have parents and relatives.There are still not a few persons loving them,concerning about their daily life ,hoping to be together happily after them released.
Fourth,work in the prison may not work sometimes.Not all criminals do not know "to gain ,to pay".On the contrary, watching tv, reading news and books,some relax like these ,may help them to find their way.
Last but not at least, we should give them an opportunity to regret and a favorable environment to change themselves into better guys.
clytsz wrote:cannistershot
According to what you say,I think it is not humanism at all.
First,nobody want to be a bad guy unless he was forced by his living conditions or other complicated relations.
Second,the criminal law's legislative original purpose is not only to punish them but also to educate them in order to protect other citizens.
Third,these prisoners like us ,have parents and relatives.There are still not a few persons loving them,concerning about their daily life ,hoping to be together happily after them released.
Fourth,work in the prison may not work sometimes.Not all criminals do not know "to gain ,to pay".On the contrary, watching tv, reading news and books,some relax like these ,may help them to find their way.
Last but not at least, we should give them an opportunity to regret and a favorable environment to change themselves into better guys.
#1 In some cases yes people steal bread because they are hungry etc. But most of the time no they are simply bad or stupid people.
#2 I agree but why let them live better than the taxpayers who are footing the bill?
#3 I agree with this also I have 2 realitives in jail, one who is stupid and one who is mean. I still love them but again why should they have a better life than most Americans when they are criminals.
#4 So if I'm lazy and want to read all day I should just rob your house?
#5???? what
willow_tl wrote:Most convicts at EDOC had jobs unless they were in seg. units...I advise anyone who cares to, to apply for a visitors pass at your state prison to see and experience how the convicted do live...must remember they are there AS punishment not FOR punishment..we are a civilized society :-)...
Good point. I know that my uncle (the stupid one) is in state prison and does work for a couple of dollars an hour, cutting grass on the roadsides etc. My other realitive (the mean one) Sits on his butt reads and watches tv all day.
Re: 2 Prisoners in one jail cell
Sabron wrote:This is a poll for a research I'm doing at the moment, just want to see what the people here think about the subject.
Do you think it should be a possibility to put 2 prisoners into one jail cell, provided that both are only "small" criminals (so no pathological murderers, and both will be released within months)?
And, if you agree with this system, do you think that the prisoners should be left the choice, or that it should be decided for them?
Thank you for your reply.
Since you stipulate that they are only"small criminals" it would make far more sense to put them in billet style accomodation say twenty men to a billet.
Dangerous criminals should be housed separately for the protection of other people.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace