BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


What is the point of prison?

 
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
sleazenation
11:22 / 26.02.02
quoted by bitchiekittie in the forgiveness thread
quote: we should just "forgive" that? allow them to simply move on peacefully with their lives, when the victim doesnt ever -EVER- get that chance?

fuck that


So, What do you all think the point of prison is and what, if different should it be?
 
 
cusm
16:39 / 26.02.02
The point? To remove people from society that might otherwise be harmful to others. That's the usual reason, to get rid of someone but not kill them. Just put them in a box, like that's more humane or something.

Only, we want it also a means of punishment, as it sucks to sit in a hole for years. An eye for an eye, and all that. Somehow, we also think this 'justice' will encourage prisoners to not commit crimes again once they are freed, that hardship and confinement will rehabilitate them. Statistics show just how well that trick works.

But short of putting a chip in someone's head, I'm not sure what better alternatives we have at the moment. I'd think it nice if justice was an eye for an eye, harm for harm, with punishment more literally fitting the crime. So, how would you 'punish' a drug user under such a system? Surely not by prison. That would require victimless crimes to be forgiven, which society is not yet ready to do. We can't give up our high fucking moral ground, after all.
 
 
m. anthony bro
17:27 / 26.02.02
How the 'victim' moves on with their lives is an interesting point. It's not up to the system or the 'crim' to do this. The entire process goes on in the 'victim's' head. If they don't choose to spend the rest of their lives being a 'victim' of crime, then that's their business. If they want this crime to loom large over them, indeed, if they want to be a 'victim' for the rest of their lives, that's their business. Nothing else, nobody else, no counselling in the world, no prison term in the world, no death penalty, NOTHING can change that.
So far as the 'crminal' is concerned, what else is there? Should they be branded as a 'criminal' forever? Should they do their ten years in the pokey and come out the other side with an unofficial sentence? That raises some questions. Why let them out again? What hope for rehabilitation? What if they did rehabilitate? If I did omething dumb 14 years ago, and the rest of the world has moved on, why can't I make the assumption that I can now start afresh? Fourteen years ago was 1988. That's a long time. Should I still be reminded of how I am capabale of doing harm? What if I have no intention of doing harm?
 
 
Ganesh
17:30 / 26.02.02
If we completely abandon the whole concept of 'rehabilitation' then why, as mike-bro asks, let anyone out at all, ever? If we assume their experience of prison has done nothing to change their mindset, then won't they just offend again? Aren't they still a 'menace to society'?

Isn't it a little dangerous, idealogically, to assume that prison's only function is containment? How does one justify releasing an essentially unchanged 'criminal'?

Of course, the polar opposite view - that the nebulous process of 'rehabilitation' has a uniformly transformative effect on peoples' characters - places a huge amount of pressure and responsibility on those poor wretches who have to administer the 'rehabilitating'...
 
 
SMS
18:58 / 26.02.02
Having laws in place does something else, too. It discourages certain kinds of behaviour that might otherwise be considered acceptable. I think there's a greater concern for following the rules than there is for not being punished.
 
 
Bop
20:11 / 06.03.02
prison is a way to remove people from society to protect others. sometimes its a place to dispose of a person without killing them. its not meant to be rehabilitation and it doesnt keep people from being criminals, many people have it better, in the U.S., when in prison than they do on the outside.

shit, i dont even get three meals a day and access to weights.. i imagine a fag who likes to exercise and be alone would love nothing more than to go to prison.

if it wasnt for prison and guns, we'd have nothing but chaos
 
 
The Monkey
20:57 / 06.03.02
Illfigure - you're new.

A lot of people on this board are and will not be very comfortable with the word "fag," which is derogatory to homosexuals.
 
 
Tom Coates
09:07 / 07.03.02
Jesus illfigure - start as you mean to go on, why don't you... I don't even know where to start with that comment, except of course to say that as a single gay, gym-going man I'm not entirely keen on the violence and man-on-man rape that characterise your fantasies of prison life.

In the meantime, as far as I'm concerned prisons should be about helping people break out of crime as a way of life - but then I'm concerned that I may be medicalising social disorder - if you don't fit in you're ill, that kind of thing... Anyone got any thoughts?
 
 
The Monkey
09:35 / 07.03.02
I guess I'd say what's wrong with medicalizing social disorder?
[misused the term - see Ganesh's post below]

It certainly not the perfect model for criminal behavior, but it's a step in the right direction. Perhaps not in the old "social disease" sense, but recognizing that often criminal activity is the product of economic and social problems. So the question becomes how to alter prison so that is becomes prophylactic, rather than punitive.

In the US, you go to prison and you're marked for life - most social and economic doors become closed. Stigma is part of the punishment...yet stigma also assures that the ex-inmate has nowhere to go with his/her life that's economically viable...except back to crime.

P.S. Illfigure - your comment is a tad off-color. You might want to look up that anti-prison-rape activist...but I can't remember his name, but he was nicknamed "... the Punk." Interesting fellow. Male-male sexual practices in prison are a seperate beast entirely for everyday queer culture...I think several gender theorists and psychologists have done studies of sex and power dynamics in prison. In general sex is neither kind nor "fun" in the standard sense...it's more of a dominance-submission Foucaltian-type thing.

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: [monkey - greatest sage of all] ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:35 / 07.03.02
It was Donny the Punk. Didn't someone here know him?

Anyway, cheerleaders for the 'prison keeps people from society to protect others' might want to note that in the US, a huge porportion of people are in jail for nonviolent drug offences. And black. And - fuck, I don't know where to start -

Prisons are a tool of social control. They are there to perpetuate unequal distribution of resources, by locking up anyone who challenges the social heirarchy. Check out this quote from Christian Parenti's book on US prisons:

Beginning in the late 1960s, U.S. Capitalism has a dual social and economic crisis, and it was in response to this crisis that the criminal justice build-up of today began. After a surge of expansion in the late 60s, the growth of criminal justice plateaued in the late 70s, only to resume in earnest during the early and mid-80s, with Reagan's war on drugs. Since then, we've been on a steady path toward ever more state repression and surveillance.

Initially, this build-up was in response to racial upheaval and political rebellion. The second part was/is more a response to the vicious economic restructuring of the Reagan era. This restructuring was itself a right-wing strategy for addressing the economic crisis which first appeared in the mid and late 60s. To restore sagging business profits, the welfare of working people had to be sacrificed. Thus, the second phase of the criminal justice crackdown has become, intentionally or otherwise, a way to manage rising inequality and surplus populations.…”(


(The link is to a useful review of Parenti's book.)

My point is that talking about the point of prison without talking about, for example, the widening gap between rich and poor, institutional racism, gentrification and rising rents and costs of living, the massive growth of the private prison industry, the war on (some) drugs, border control, etc., etc., brings us down to this ridiculously psychologised level of argument where someone can seriously ask what's wrong with medicalising criminality.

Since 1980, the violent crime rate in the US has fallen 18%; the incarceration rate has risen 400%; 700 new prisons have been built; the number of women in prison has increased sevenfold. More than 60% of US prisoners are there for nonviolent offenders, i.e., 1.2 million people. According to a Senate survey of prison wardens - not famous for their liberal views - wardens believe that 'on average half the offenders under the supervision could be released without endangering public safety.' (Information taken from No More Prisons by William Upski Sinclair, published in 99.) That's without addressing the insane racialisation of US prisoners or the use of immigration detention centres as pseudo-administrative prisons around the world.
 
 
The Monkey
09:35 / 07.03.02
Well put. I'd add that there's also an economic gradient...poverty corresponds to shit representation, either because the appointed counsel doesn't care, or doesn't have time to given the dozens of pro bono case s/he juggles at once - hence greater likelihood of being fisted by "justice."

Thanx for the fill in on "Donny the Punk." And yes, someone knew, or at least referenced him, at some other time and place on this board...something about his radio show?

The drug offence thing really bugs me, especially given the tricky slide from "possession" to "distribution" depending upon quantity carried, and that prosecutors automatically push for the hardest sentence because of the war of drugs.

War on drugs, She-et.
 
 
Ganesh
10:22 / 07.03.02
quote:Originally posted by [monkey - greatest sage of all]:
I guess I'd say what's wrong with medicalizing social disorder? It certainly not the perfect model for criminal behavior, but it's a step in the right direction. Perhaps not in the old "social disease" sense, but recognizing that often criminal activity is the product of economic and social problems.


That's different from 'medicalising' it. The problem with labelling a social phenomenon 'medical' is that it then assumes 'illness' characteristics ie. responsibility is devolved from the perpetrator (now a 'sufferer') and his/her behaviour becomes the province of doctors who must then attempt to 'cure' him with whatever imperfect methods are to hand. Ultimately, this is unfair on both the perpetrator (who may well be exposed to unnecessary, unpleasant and/or dangerous 'treatments' by his increasingly desperate physicians) and the doctors (who are pressured to accept responsibility for their charge, administer dodgy treatments and face the inevitable backlash when they're unsuccessful).

The concept of 'rehabilitation' falls nicely between the poles of 'punishment' and 'treatment'. I think that's the concept that requires developing.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:15 / 07.03.02
No one has addressed the role of prison as a means of retribution on behalf of the victim and in cases of general interest for wider society. I'm not saying that this is a positive aspect of punishment, but we shouldn't neccessarily dismiss the idea that the victim achieves some sort of closure in seeing a criminal punished.

This doesn't apply to victimless crimes, of course, and this aspect seems to completely lack compassion. Since I have never been the victim of a crime (only minor ones perhaps) I find it hard to judge how important this sort of state sponsored revenge might be.

However, this is a minor issue when compared to the socio economic bias present in the prison population and the injustice that implies.
 
 
The Natural Way
11:21 / 07.03.02
illfigure: you and me, babe. Getting married.
 
 
Tom Coates
11:23 / 07.03.02
I suppose my sense of unease with regards to rehabilitation comes from the idea that while most of us would probably not have an issue with rehabilitation for drug problems (victimless crimes), we might have rather more problem with rehabilitation for being gay or a frustrated housewife in the 50s...
 
 
bitchiekittie
12:33 / 07.03.02
I dont think prison is bad in itself - I think all the things that put people in jail in the first place is the real problem.

1. the police who arrest a person are bound by specific rules to follow, regardless of individual circumstances - add to that personal biases and the potential heat of the arrest and often someone lands in jail that should never have gotten there. on the other hand, laziness and/or incompetence may allow someone who is dangerous to walk free

2. judges, it seems to me, have too much personal freedom when it comes to sentencing. one judge might throw something out as utterly ridiculous while another might throw the same person in jail for the maximum allowed time. judges are another group that are not without personal biases and the potential for corruption. again with the laziness or incompetence

3. the prison system is fucked. violence, abuse, and neglect are prevelant, all across the board. there needs to be a better understanding of what works and what doesnt - sure, I believe that some people are simply a liabilty and should be caged for good. but most people in prison either shouldnt have ever gotten there in the first place OR could easily go on to live their lives without ever re-offending. people fuck up, but if you screw them up bad enough its not going to stop
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
12:49 / 07.03.02
Sooo... I assume from that last post that you'd decided to post all of the immediately obvious arguments around the subject so that everyone else could discuss it intelligently? That's really good of you. Barbelith's own sin eater, ladies and gentlemen...
 
 
Ganesh
12:58 / 07.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Tom Coates:
I suppose my sense of unease with regards to rehabilitation comes from the idea that while most of us would probably not have an issue with rehabilitation for drug problems (victimless crimes), we might have rather more problem with rehabilitation for being gay or a frustrated housewife in the 50s...


Sure. I guess I'm arguing in a more abstract way that the concept of 'rehabilitation' (which, to me, suggests a period of active reflection and readjustment, possibly guided) is preferable to medicalisation (which implies more passively waiting to be 'cured'). I was thinking of this more in connection with crimes in which victims are involved than 'victimless' ones; I didn't really make that clear.

And Lurid Archive's point about retribution is apposite - although there are problems with allowing this to dominate proceedings (I pointed out elsewhere that, because it's more unusual/'shocking' for women or children to commit violent crimes, they tend to be characterised as 'unnatural monsters' and given longer - even indefinite - prison sentences). For some crimes (mainly property-related), I'm very much in favour of the mediated face-to-face 'meet the victim' schemes, where the criminal/perpetrator and victim are brought together. This humanises the situation for both parties and, I think, helps the victim gain some degree of closure.
 
 
Ganesh
13:20 / 07.03.02
Bitchiekittie: I agree, generally, but I think your analysis perhaps leans too much toward blaming faulty legal/prison systems for basic human unpredictability. Yes, you're right, they are deeply, deeply flawed - but I reckon they can only be standardised/'perfected' up to a point.

Your third point, particularly, illustrates the difficulties: you say some people constitute a "liability" and should be imprisoned indefinitely, while others shouldn't be there at all. If you're talking about the possibility of individuals reoffending, then there is no way of accurately predicting who will and who won't. It's not just a case of imperfect, corrupted systems; no system can ever guarantee that X will never reoffend, or that Y invariably will. Hence, the question of who should be in prison and who shouldn't isn't as straightforward as your post seems to suggest.

It's impossible to completely eliminate all risk of reoffending - although society pressures the 'rehabilitators' to do just that...
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:37 / 07.03.02
quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:

2. judges, it seems to me, have too much personal freedom when it comes to sentencing. one judge might throw something out as utterly ridiculous while another might throw the same person in jail for the maximum allowed time. judges are another group that are not without personal biases and the potential for corruption. again with the laziness or incompetence


I think that you'll find in reality that a lot of the people that arguably shouldn't be in prison (non-violent drug offenders) are there precisely because judges have little leeway in determining sentences, because of the mania for "mandatory minimum" laws that were passed with an eye on being "tough on crime" and cracking down on those pansy liberal judges who'd rather treat a crack addict than throw him away to rot.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:49 / 07.03.02
I share some of Tom's unease with rehabilitation. For the sake of argument, you might have a someone who commits crime for material gain and accepts the risk as being outweighed by the benefits. This is a free market model of crime.

How do you rehabilitate someone like this? You can make the punishment so harsh as to affect their calculation, but this runs the risk of being unjust. Ironically, one could also argue that this encourages more ruthless behaviour on the part of criminals.

On top of this, the demonisation of people who have been to prison (and lack of oppurtunitiies) can reinforce the idea that crime is the best option.

If someone decides that crime is the best option then there is something very fucked up with society that can't be addressed by individual rehabilitation.

I understand that the topic of this thread was mostly concerned with crimes that are more victim centered, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are many different crimes and many reasons for committing them.
 
 
Ganesh
14:24 / 07.03.02
Oh, I don't think I'd try to argue the case for rehabilitating victimless crimes - unless we're talking about exploring the reasons around the crime (burglary to support opiate habit, say) and attempting to alleviate them (detox in prison, for example, plus practical skills training, etc., etc.)

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:09 / 07.03.02
Is burglary a victimless crime?
 
 
Ganesh
15:13 / 07.03.02
I was thinking stealing from shops, supermarket chains and so on (does 'burglary' have to be a private home?) but if you're being picky, no; it's a crime against property. In which case there's no real argument to be made for rehabilitating victimless crimes. Using a strict definition of 'victimless', it's difficult to justify their being in prison at all...

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
bitchiekittie
15:52 / 07.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Jack The Bodiless:
Sooo... I assume from that last post that you'd decided to post all of the immediately obvious arguments around the subject so that everyone else could discuss it intelligently? That's really good of you. Barbelith's own sin eater, ladies and gentlemen...


wazzat?
 
 
Ganesh
15:55 / 07.03.02
(Confused me a little too, BK...)
 
 
bitchiekittie
15:59 / 07.03.02
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:
[QB]Bitchiekittie: I agree, generally, but I think your analysis perhaps leans too much toward blaming faulty legal/prison systems for basic human unpredictability. Yes, you're right, they are deeply, deeply flawed - but I reckon they can only be standardised/'perfected' up to a point.....

Hence, the question of who should be in prison and who shouldn't isn't as straightforward as your post seems to suggest.[qb]

I agree with you - theres no "perfect" solution, on any level. I just wonder if there isnt a more "streamlined" system that could determine who is a danger to themselves and/or others, who is in honest need of help, who seems capable of rehabilitation, and who just needs a second chance. or am I mired in fantasy land?
 
 
bitchiekittie
16:03 / 07.03.02
quote:Originally posted by todd:
I think that you'll find in reality that a lot of the people that arguably shouldn't be in prison (non-violent drug offenders) are there precisely because judges have little leeway in determining sentences, because of the mania for "mandatory minimum" laws that were passed with an eye on being "tough on crime" and cracking down on those pansy liberal judges who'd rather treat a crack addict than throw him away to rot.


and there are no distinctions on the varying degrees of the severity of a crime? or the surrounding circumstances?
 
 
Ganesh
16:06 / 07.03.02
All the things you describe, Bitchiekittie, are either highly subjective or virtually impossible to assess with any degree of accuracy. Forensic psychiatrists hate being called upon to assess the likes of 'dangerousness' because it's so hopelessly imprecise yet they're expected to stake their careers on it.

The system, as it stands, can certainly be 'tweaked' but with all the "streamlining" in the world, it's never gonna be easy (maybe never even possible) to tell the Goodies from the Baddies...

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:08 / 07.03.02
Ganesh: I always think of victimless crime as being almost synonymous to a crime that shouldn't be. Perhaps, I havn't thought this through.

bitchiekittie: I'm not sure this is as easy as we'd like. Besides I get nasty Orwellian images when I think of punishing people according to their attitude. I'm also reminded of Cool Hand Luke and "getting your mind right, boy".
 
 
Ganesh
16:09 / 07.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Lurid Archive:
Ganesh: I always think of victimless crime as being almost synonymous to a crime that shouldn't be. Perhaps, I havn't thought this through.


No, I think you're probably right. I was initially stretching the definition of 'victimless' slightly...
 
 
bitchiekittie
16:41 / 07.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:
The system, as it stands, can certainly be 'tweaked' but with all the "streamlining" in the world, it's never gonna be easy (maybe never even possible) to tell the Goodies from the Baddies...


ah, then I am dwelling in fantasy land.

I'm also reminded of Cool Hand Luke and "getting your mind right, boy".

this makes an eerily good point
 
 
Rage
18:14 / 07.03.02
Oh my fuck.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:43 / 07.03.02
Shouldn't the basic role of a prison be twofold: one, to remove people from society if their behaviour is dangerous to that society (leaving aside definitions of "dangerous" for the moment), and two, to help people tackle the underlying problems that prompted their crimes? For example, there's a high degree of illiteracy and poor literacy amongst prisoners- what efforts could be made to remedy this? How can damaging patterns of behavior be changed? At the moment we've got a situation where prison is little more than a containment system.

Human Rights Watch has plenty to say on the prison system as it stands. I recommend reading some of their reports.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
19:11 / 07.03.02
quote:I think prisons are fascinating places, like all alternative societies, and I used to stare up at the walls and watch the gate police. Years later I saw a documentary on TV. A camera crew had been allowed to film inside. A lot of tough girls for sure, but among them, there were women who should have been in mental hospitals - not prison. Victims of an ‘underfunded' society which would lock up the desperate rather than tend to their troubled minds.

"One day freedom will unlock your door..."

No one thinks enough of the fact that prison tends to act as a facility to hold people. There are political prisoners (Arundhati Roy was locked up only a few days ago for speaking her mind... Booker award winning novelist or no, the facts speak for themselves... contempt of a court that speaks of 'the glory' of India's legal system as if it were a given, rather than a questionable, tangible (and therefore permeable) membrane).

There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Nonesuch. Because the law (as the only 'right' definition of who gets locked up and who doesn't) defines crime. And there's always a victim, if you look long and hard enough.

So (to reflect back on the quote which gave this thread substance) - does 'the law' give anyone the right to definecrime as a concept? Or are we trapped within a framework that decides for us the things and people that fall and collapse under arbitrary definitions of this nature? Who decides who is a 'criminal'? Should we believe them? Should certain acts contitute 'crimes'? Since we (as a community) are apt to conceptualise these things as pertaining to our own community ethics - what's crime, then? Is Arundhati Roy a criminal, because India has decided she is? How should she have been punished? If at all? What about those delivered into the 'care' of the community? Are they criminals? They're certainly treated as such by the community they're delivered into, if the reports of petrol bombing and anti-socilisation are to be trusted. Is prison just an enclosure, or a state of mind and an alternative society fostered by the law (which is a geographical and chronographical restraint imposed upon us by the society around us)?

What's prison, then, bearing the above in mind? Who lives there and why? Who the fuck are we talking about?
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply