response 1 of 34:

Dec 10 23:31 UTC 1993

 Tougher laws won't do much, but tougher sentencing will.
 
    Why is it that our society tends to accept 'putting down' or
'euthanizing' non-human animals after they simply bite a human (without
regard for whether or not the animal acted properly), yet 'euthanizing' a
criminal human who understood the repercussions of their actions is thought
of as being barbaric, or cruel & unusual?
 
   There's a much better chance that you could reform a mean pit-bull (which
in most cases, have been trained to be mean by humans...) that likes to
bite than there is in reforming a human who likes to hurt or kill.

response 3 of 34:

Dec 12 15:27 UTC 1993

Re 1.  Tougher sentencing?  Where have you been for the last 20 years?
The public has cried out for stiffer prison terms, and the U.S. criminal
justice system has responded.  Parole and "good time" have been abolished
or restricted in many jurisdictions.  Mandatory minimums and sentencing
guidelines have had an impact as well.  The penalties have also been
increased in many penal codes.

So what result?  The number of people in prison has doubled in ten years.
I believe it also doubled in the preceding ten years.  The number of
women in prison has tripled in the last ten years.  The cost of keeping
prisons running has skyrocketed, forcing many states and localities to
cut back on all other services to feed the prisons and jails.

Okay, Tim, we have the tougher sentences you wanted.  I'd be interested
to hear your explanation of how this has improved matters.

(I'm not saying, btw, that these developments are necessarily a bad thing,
but the reflexive, automatic cries for "tougher sentences" sound just the
same in 1993 as they did in 1973.  Going further in this direction will
require enormously higher levels of public expenditure.)

response 5 of 34:

Dec 13 02:46 UTC 1993

re #4:  Put what deterrant "back" in the death penalty?  The deterrent
        that so scared pickpockets in England that they worked the crowds
        watching the public hangings of thieves?  And how does your
        system mesh with (a) state sovereignty issues, or (b) the fact
        that there simply aren't that many death penalty cases to hear.

        I guess I inadvertantly covered the "publicity" question in my
        response to your first point....

        From your commentary, Jim, you seem much more concerned with the
        swiftness of justice than either the sureness or effectiveness.

response 7 of 34:

Dec 17 02:50 UTC 1993

Re 6.  More executions?  What percentage of people in prison now are there
for capital crimes?  Maybe 1%?  Less?

Providing work for prisoners, as opposed to warehousing them in cells, is
enormously expensive.  The idea that they would create a "product" or
"profit" that would offset the cost of confinement is pure fantasy.

Like I said above, since you didn't read it the first time, sentences have
been vastly lengthened (including actual time served), parole opportunities
have been greatly restricted.  I don't see you arguing that this has worked.

More prisons?  You mean, vastly higher tax rates to pay for an even bigger
expansion of the prison system than we've already seen in the last ten
years?  Sounds real popular, doesn't it?

Less prisoner rights?  How do we do that?  Amend the Constitution to say
"prisoners have no rights"?  If you want to cut the cost of prisons,
what we really need is an amendment that says "prisoners get no health
care."  (And long sentences have created an aging prison population.)

I thought you were a practical, realistic man, Tim.  Your recent responses
have tarnished that impression.  This fanciful, wishful thinking of yours
is even less realistic than Marxism.

response 9 of 34:

Dec 19 05:18 UTC 1993

Visit Jackson Prison, Tim.  Or visit Marquette and ask if you can join
in the dining experience of "food loaf."  Go to clean-looking, new, Standish
Prison, and hear a prisoner complain that the small space under the walls
between cells, meant to facilitate cleaning, allows one's neighbor to
share his bodily waste products....  Oh, how cushy....

It isn't the "comfort" of prisons that leads people to commit crimes.  And
criminals almost universally don't think they are going to be caught, so
the discomfort isn't much of a disincentive.

response 11 of 34:

Dec 20 22:41 UTC 1993

As if the residents of crack houses care about their surroundings....

What are you suggesting, Tim?  That guards periodically spread dirt,
garbage, and bodily waste producs in prisoners' cells?

response 13 of 34:

Dec 22 03:32 UTC 1993

Dirt in a prison is a sign of a security problem.  The most secure prisons
are kept very clean.

response 15 of 34:

Dec 23 17:55 UTC 1993

Methinks Tim isn't applying much thought to this matter, beyond his
(as of yet, unsubstantiated) claim that prisons are too cushy.

If, on the other hand, he has thought about this issue, and has some
ideas he would like to share, I would like to see them.

response 17 of 34:

Feb 24 21:42 UTC 1994

The full text of the letter appeared in one of the local detroit papers
that I perused briefly at work this morning, unfortunately, I forget which.
Did Bill mention that this offender was in Camp Brighton, and exactly the
place where murderers go to stay?  
Certainly the practice you advocate does break the 8th, otherwise the
prisoners wouldn't have the amenites they have.  Unfortunately, again.

response 19 of 34:

Feb 25 05:40 UTC 1994

If there is one single amenity which I believe prisoners should *not* have,
it is television.  Let them have access to all the books they want, but
we owe incarcerated criminals no entertainment, save that which they can
create for themselves.  By limiting their entertainment to books, I think we
increase the odds that they will spend their time in prison productively, and
possible come out of prison with some of the education that they might have
missed earlier.  Even in minimum security prisons, perhaps especially in those,
we ought not to allow prisoners to conduct business or maintain daily contact
with those ouside, with the possible exception of their attorneys.  Prison 
should be rehabilitative, but that does not mean that it should not also be
punitive.  This applies to convicted criminals, but I think there should be a
separate and different way of handling those who are awaiting trial, or who 
have otherwise not been proven guilty by standard processes.  Let the concept
of innocence until proven guilty be practiced in the way we deal with these
folks.
        Another thing:  punishment as a deterrent only works until too many
people decide that the (necessarily increasing) severity of the punishment is
too great.  The only real solution is to deal with the root causes.  Putting
a band-aid on a deep, uncleansed wound only delays the inevitable until it
is too severe to be ignored, and possibly too severe to be cured.  I don't
like the idea of 'amputating' portions of our society, but that's the way
we currently approach our crime problem.

response 21 of 34:

Mar 4 23:15 UTC 1994

re #16:  That sounds like Bonds, alright....

         Prisons aren't "cushy," Jim.

re #19:  Prisoners stay out of trouble when they are watching TV.
         Many prisoners are illiterate, and many who can read have no
         use for books.

         If you want to engage in social engineering, how about doing
         so *before* your proposed subjects end up in jail.

re #20:  Anybody can file suit about anything, Erik.

         What "correctional" elements do you see as flawed, within the
         present system?  Please be specific.  And what is the difference
         between a "correctional concept" and a "rehabilitation element"?

response 23 of 34:

Mar 5 08:15 UTC 1994

You don't need a qualifier on your initial statement.

Prisons may have a TV in a common area, Jim, with emphasis on "may."
That is not the same thing as providing prisoners with TV's.

"What will be next?  Voting rights?"  Boy -- you sure took the fast
track down the slippery slope....