From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Jul 29 2002 - 09:40:58 MDT
Clinton Alexander wrote:
>...
>The plan for 'large apartment' sized cells is to make them about 10
>times bigger than they are now. That means you need 10 times more
>space, 10 times more building materials, and 10 times the labor force to
>build it. Every single cell, according to the plan, would also have to
>be equipped and wired for closed circuit television. And what if a
>
No. I wasn't going to include a closed circuit television. What they
do in their own space is up to them. And the door was welded shut
because one of the violence inducing characteristics of prisions is the
interaction between prisoners and guards. I'm sorry that the prisons
would initially take up more space, but the current situation is
inhumane, and I just can't recommend maintaining it. The inhumanity and
the positive feedback violence cycles are the features within the prison
system that keep the system going. (There are also external factors,
but that's a separate and even more difficult matter.)
The isolation is to case the defusing of the conditioned reactions.
Sufficient time away from others tends to defuse this. I would prefer
a system where the prisoner could work at a simple task to "earn" his
food, but it would need to be a task that could not be judged by other
people, and this is difficult to design. Particularly if you want a
high survival rate. If external people judged the task, then their
sadistic tendencies could all too easily be reinforced. And this is not
desireable.
>prisoner decided to be rebellious and throw feces everywhere? How are
>you going to get someone in there to clean it up if the doors are welded
>shut, and if you don't want to clean it up, are you going to allow the
>
That's their problem.
>family and friends to see their loved ones in a cell with trash and sh*t
>everywhere? Then your costs would go up in lawyer's fees for all the
>
Nobody gets in. Nobody. This is a dessert island substitute.
>law suits you would be dodging regarding human rights.
>
I am surprised that you can mention human rights in conjucntion with
today's prisons. They don't belong in the same sentence, except as
examples of contrast.
>The idea presented where we hole up prisoners with welded doors is the
>same as the current idea about prison, only taken to a further point on
>the spectrum. There's nothing new in that idea. You see, caging people
>does not work. It doesn't work in the zoo, and it won't work in human
>society.
>
The problem is the current system allows those in authority to brutalize
those who are helpless. I am trying to remove that element. This is
why I am so adamant about NO contact (well, there are secondary reasons,
which indicate that all forms of communication external should be
limited, and yes, it is a punishment, but it's also a therapy).
The current system promotes social systems that encourage futher
brutalization of those who are already helpless, and once those skills
are sufficiently practiced, the inmate is considered to have done his
time. (This is, perhaps, an incorrect condemnation of the current
system, but only in a technical sense.) But isolation is a sufficent
problem for people to face that sentences would probably need to be
shortened significantly. Many people seem to find brutalization and
sexual assaults easier to take than isolation. But from the point of
view of society as a whole, isolation produces fewer objectionable
changes in the personalities of the detained. In fact, in many cases it
improves them, though that might be a bit much to expect when people are
being forced into it against their will. All I'm really hoping for is
that the chains of conditioned behavior will weaken a bit, and that they
will become distanced from the social organizations that they were
previously a part of. This will act as a discouraging factor in
resuming their past behavior. It could hardly do much worse than the
current system.
>
>In concession, I don't have a solution otherwise. Optimistically, I
>would say rehabilitation - I have seen it work for some people with my
>own eyes, but it doesn't work for everybody. What incentives cause
>criminals to stop committing crime? There must be a more creative and
>intelligent solution than "weld them shut with closed circuit
>television,", no?
>
>Clinton
>
>...
>
Why do you believe that there would be a television? What they do in
their own space is up to them. I see no reason why one should be even
curious about it. What I am proposing would allow them to be reasonably
comfortable if they care for their environment, and totally
uncomfortable if they damage it. Which happens is, as it ought to be,
up to them. This should be explained to them before they are introduced
to the environment. The electric power available wouldn't be sufficient
to run and electric welder even if they could build one. The doors
would take too long to grind through. Etc. They are on their own,
which is the idea and the purpose. But they must have a reasonable
amount of space, possibly even a slightly luxurious amount of space,
because they are restricted to only that space. This is a dessert
island substitute, so there are no visitations by anyone.
To understand the reasonings behind this consider (among other pieces)
both the Stanford experiment where the psychology class was randomly
divided into prisoners and guards, and the various sensory deprivation
studies. (This is a low grade form of sensory deprivation.) Tales of
marooned sailors and arctic explorers also play a part in the reasoning
here. And studies that indicate that abusing adults were usually abused
as children, etc.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:45 MST