Experimentation on Prisoners

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Firstly, the prisons should not be run by government.

Secondly, no one should be behind bars that is not a violent offender.[/quote]

How would we run prisons if not by the government?

Secondly, I agree.[/quote]

Simple.

Prisons make money by housing as many inmates as possible, so to maximize profit, you need to fill up prisons as much as you can. How? You lock people up for all sorts of shit, even menial shit, hence the war on drugs. Reagan was brilliant with this, he criminalized drugs to the point where the rate of crime stayed the same but the rate of incarceration quadrupled. How did that happen? People got locked up for lesser and lesser shit (me being one of them). Anyone ever wonder why there isn’t a war on pedophiles? Or a war on rapists? Because there aren’t enough of them to make locking them up profitable.

Then you build more prisons. When you have done that, you fill those up, but with whom? Want to guess who helped pass the Arizona Immigration Law? The prison lobby. Yes, and it’s really brilliant because it’s a no brainer (to lock up people who are here illegally).

Guess what comes with prisons? Administrators for parole, probation, halfway houses, drug/alcohol rehab, counseling, bailiffs, judges, US Marshals.

With all that money being thrown around ^^^, does anyone really wonder why we didn’t legalize pot? Think the lobby behind all that up there ^^^ wants to give any of that up?

Funny side note - the main company that supplies prison and jail commissaries is called Keefe. Guess who owns Keefe? Laura Bush. No joke. [/quote]

No, if the business is to reform criminals it would seek to try and reform as many inmates as possible and also do its best to keep them from recommitting crimes – e.g. it would have to have a top notch parole program. Also, it would be really difficult to reform criminals when they are surrounded by too many other criminals. The population would have to be extremely controlled.[/quote]

No.

The BUSINESS is not to reform criminals, but to house them. CCA’s don’t make money by reforming anyone, they are paid to house them, in which case the more they house, the more money they make. Also, to make even more money, you need to have a high recidivism rate so they come back.

Reforming a person comes from the person, the same way the desire to educate one’s self comes from the individual’s desire to learn. If you do not want to learn, you will not do well, no matter how good the school. [/quote]

I am not talking about the way they currently work. I am talking about the ways in which they could possibly work outside the current cartelized framework.

Private schools still do better than public schools and they also have a much freer reign in which to operate than do prisons (I refer to public schools as prisons for free thinkers).

62

Well if you put in those terms, yes I think it could work Lift.

A main problem though, which is beyond reforming prisons, is to give some of these guys opportunities so they don’t have to commit more crimes when they get out. Alot of these guys go back to crime when they cannot find a way to make money legit. I am not looking for violin music or a Kleenex box, but it’s a main problem.

63

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Well if you put in those terms, yes I think it could work Lift.

A main problem though, which is beyond reforming prisons, is to give some of these guys opportunities so they don’t have to commit more crimes when they get out. Alot of these guys go back to crime when they cannot find a way to make money legit. I am not looking for violin music or a Kleenex box, but it’s a main problem.[/quote]

Yes, and this is why I believe that reforming violent people must remain out of the hands of government. It would require a whole new approach than the way it is done now.

64

Sounds expensive Lift.

65

I am absolutely against this. It discredits science as a whole, let alone branding your research as untouchable FOREVER. I have made a post in a thread like this earlier, and I’ll add it below this one. That thread assumed that the experiments would result in a breakthrough, which is generally no the case. However, the original moral and factual points still remain relevant.

I personally have no religious or ethical qualms with experimentation on animals. However, unnecessary cruelty towards animal test subjects is still entirely off limits. If I have to kill something for the purposes of the experiment, I am going to do so; however I will not let it die slowly or in pain.

I care nothing whatsoever what these people are in jail for, and I am not arguing against the penal system and various institutions related to such; experimentation on any humans without their consent is morally and ethically unforgivable, and is in fact a worse crime than anything an ordinary prison inmate would have committed.

Quoted post from the thread mentioned above:

[quote]grayman19 wrote:
"Alright, I’m going to disregard the bullshit that has come before in this thread, and answer the original question.

No, I would not perform the experiment. The laws of informed consent not only exist to safeguard any and all test subjects, they also safeguard the reputation and credibility of science in general. No breakthrough, no matter how great, will be accepted if it was written in human blood and suffering. This is why scientists are not burned at the stake as witches performing dark rituals any more, because of thousands of years of mostly positive PR has gotten us to this point. Human experimentation without consent is RIGHTLY illegal.

Also, no breakthrough can be used without being confirmed by other groups. This means more human experimentation and suffering, actions that will actually undermine the credibility of your research, and all of science.

There are ways of making subjects aware of the effects of the experiment, without actually affecting the data. Psychological studies do this all the time, by listing the all of the possible effects of the experiment, and informing patients that they can stop whenever they want to. Thusly, the patient is still in the dark about the actual experiment, yet your results are intact.

All experiments, including those done on animals, are reviewed by independent Review Boards for their risks and benefits. For animal testing, the processes are evaluated to avoid cruelty towards the animals. The consent process is evaluated if done on humans, in order to make certain each patient is informed of the risks they face."[/quote]

66

For reference’s sake, I am a biomedical engineering student, and have gone through several conferences, lectures, and one course on bioethics. I have performed experiments on rats, worked with stem cells, and harvested silk from silk worms (yes I had to boil them, no I did no cackle with evil glee as I did so).

67

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Some great points by the ‘Maxes’.

As for humans being above animals, who came up with that? A god written in the same bible that states that the sun goes around the earth, a woman was created from a man’s rib, god sent a bear to kill a buncsh of kids because they were making fun of a man? That seems like an untrustworthy source that doesnt match up with the rest of reality, andwe havent been able to reproduce. Can you give me another source? [/quote]

Such would seem strange if that is what the Torah actually says, but it doesn’t.

Non-Jewish people read: (1) bad translations of the Torah; (2) in a vaccuum without 3500 years of back-story and (3) without the manual (the Talmud). It’s no surprise you goy come up with the weirdest interpretations.

If I thought HaShem was who you think HaShem is, I’d have problems with Him, too.[/quote]

I’m talking about the christian bible, face value, no interpretations. If it’s really the word of god, he knew people would interpret it wrong and could have been more clear if that’s not really what it meant.

Also, you were instructed by others about how to interpret the word. How do you know for sure that THEY got it right?[/quote]

I am pretty clearly not one to opine on the Christian Bible, so I can’t help you much there.

I would note that the Christians I know who take their commitment seriously tend to be happy, well-adjusted, people. They tend to be productive citizens, good parents, good neighbors, and and good employees.

Annoying, perhaps, but doing their best to honor G-d in their way, and that works for me.[/quote]

They also tend to be ignorant of what they consider the dark-side of their nature and judge/vote for others for things they know little about, take circular reasoning to a new level, and often have families where one person expresses all the negative emotions that they have deemed are not okay to be aka “we aren’t angry people”.

I also know many members of many other religions and quite a few agnostics who are happy, well-adjusted people, productive citizens (the most productive ones I know personally happen to be agnostic), etc. So this leads me to believe that religion (as Christianity isn’t the only one guilty of resulting in the above paragraph) can limit a person’s ability to have a complete thought process, which does effect others, while not being necessary for the positive benefits you listed above.

68

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why not just experiment on members of the armed forces…oh wait, they already do that.

If this hypothetical experimentation to be done on humans is not completely voluntary then it should be considered immoral in all circumstances.[/quote]

Nailed it.

69

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Firstly, the prisons should not be run by government.

Secondly, no one should be behind bars that is not a violent offender.[/quote]

Idk about your first point, because companies could seek profits by increasing inmate populations but your second point is 100% true. Why do people think that something like possession of weed should land a person in the hell we call prison?

70

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Well, the National Socialists started with the foulest of prisoners in Germany.

They then went on to other “undesireables.”

The idea that a human life (no matter how foul) is of less value than the life of an animal is a dangerously slippery slope.[/quote]

This.

71

“Mr. Doe, it appears that recently discovered DNA evidence proves your innocene. You’re free to go. Hope that third arm growing on your back can be of some service to you in your new found freedom.”

72

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/singermag1.html

A very good read.

73

i have read most of the replies in this thread but not all so forgive me if i have missed anything but i had to post.
I work in the UK prison service and have some experience of things that people have wrote,alot differs from US prisons but some is similar.

Prisons should be government run and focus on rehabilitation but NOT sway away from punishment/addressing behaviour leading to crimes.
If a prison is run but a company (private prison) it normally works out cheaper for the Government as they pay less wages to staff etc and has quotas to meet ie, being full to capacity over gov prisons and they are now talking about being ‘performance related’ and being paid on reducing reofending stats.
But, bottom line is that the more crime/criminals there are the more the owner of the prison makes… is that ethical?? shouldnt we work on reducing crime overall?
and what also gets forgotton about is that the private prison saves money on things like staff training, they arent trained to the same degree as gov officers, so who bails them out when the shit hits the fan? gov run prisons.

what alot of people seem to forget is that prisons hold people who have been removed from society for many reasons. Some people dont want to rehabilitate and are quite content with being bad people. Your never going to force these people to rehabilitate but have the option open for them in the prison if they change, IF ofcourse.

not sure it they should test on prisoners, undecided on that

74

[quote]adrenalinx wrote:

Prisons should be government run and focus on rehabilitation [/quote]

Thanks for the laugh, it’s been a tough morning and this really helped out.

75

Yeah, good thing that don’t already do that, like on us military folk…oh wait, nevermind. Somewhat joking, but isn’t it funny how these people are claiming they’d be horrified and in an uproar if we experimented on convicted offenders, but never do anything about the fact that the military is always the go-to source for mass experimentation?

Also, I don’t get something, honestly. For those of y’all that believe we are nothing more than highly developed animals, where do you draw the line? Can you honestly say that you would choose to save/spare the life of your puppy before that of a stranger that has done you no harm? If so, I’m genuinely scared. And if not, doesn’t that tell you where your priorities actually lie?

Having said that, I have no issue with killing animals. I’ve done so, and didn’t feel the least bit bad. If you kill something and eat it, or otherwise utilize its resources, then no matter how much of a hippie you are, you should have no guilt. Animals kill each other all the time, and they don’t feel bad. Besides, isn’t that helping fix overpopulation/global warming/whatever, which ultimately is HELPING mankind? Just throwing some shit out there…

76

I think they already experimented on prisoners from what I saw…

In 2004, I recall seeing boxes of frozen fish (imagine fish fillets from McDonalds) that had written “expire in 1996.” Yet they fed them to us. We also had burgers made with soy meat, probably because it is cheap as hell, and raises estrogen trying to reduce aggression maybe. Indoor facilities are kept really cold, which makes you lazy and want to sleep. Quite honestly, fuck them all.

As far as the hardcore criminals, drop them in acid, in a bubbling volcano, whatever blows your hair back. Those people are hopeless, with no intention of changing, no remorse, they are wasting perfectly good oxygen.

77

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]adrenalinx wrote:

Prisons should be government run and focus on rehabilitation [/quote]

Thanks for the laugh, it’s been a tough morning and this really helped out. [/quote]

?? i didnt say they were like that but they should be.

i dont think anyone has experimented on prisoners in the UK. To be honest i dont think anyone could be bothered and budgets would not allow for it.Especially nowadays,human rights groups wouldn’t allow anything to happen to their beloved prisoners.

its hard enough to get away with telling a prisoner to ‘shut up’ let alone feed them out of date food lol

78

[quote]adrenalinx wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]adrenalinx wrote:

Prisons should be government run and focus on rehabilitation [/quote]

Thanks for the laugh, it’s been a tough morning and this really helped out. [/quote]

?? i didnt say they were like that but they should be.

i dont think anyone has experimented on prisoners in the UK. To be honest i dont think anyone could be bothered and budgets would not allow for it.Especially nowadays,human rights groups wouldn’t allow anything to happen to their beloved prisoners.

its hard enough to get away with telling a prisoner to ‘shut up’ let alone feed them out of date food lol [/quote]

Is this your defense for your comical statement that prisoners should be rehabilitated?

79

ok, maybe rehabilitation aint the right word but i dont think just letting certain people rot is the answer.

I think manual labour works for some, i think education works for others and i know here in England prisons do courses to address addiction, anger management etc and it works - for some.
Not any 1 thing will work for everyone. Some guys (and maybe even girls) have been inside on this site for things they probably accept they did wrong and they may have been going through tough times and kept getting banged up for certain crimes forming a cycle which they couldnt get out and prison could have broke the cycle if certain courses/education was successful.

is it comical for an alchoholic who keeps getting arrested for anti-social behaviour to get banged up for 1 year and be enrolled on an 'Alcoholics Anonymous’course where he is totally sober and can see the error of his ways? is that not rehabilitation?
or should we just let someone like him rot and release him after a year so he can go straight to the pub,get drunk and run over one of YOUR relatives when he drink drives his way home?

dont get me wrong, im not a do-gooder, i believe some should rot and i dont think we should shy away from telling them that they have done wrong.To be honest i think the USA does it quite well, i see programs where people get 2 years in the Seg (your SHU) that doesnt really happen here. People pussy around too much and feel sorry for some of the worlds worst criminals. But you cant tar everyone with the same brush

80

[quote]adrenalinx wrote:
ok, maybe rehabilitation aint the right word but i dont think just letting certain people rot is the answer.

I think manual labour works for some, i think education works for others and i know here in England prisons do courses to address addiction, anger management etc and it works - for some.
Not any 1 thing will work for everyone. Some guys (and maybe even girls) have been inside on this site for things they probably accept they did wrong and they may have been going through tough times and kept getting banged up for certain crimes forming a cycle which they couldnt get out and prison could have broke the cycle if certain courses/education was successful.

is it comical for an alchoholic who keeps getting arrested for anti-social behaviour to get banged up for 1 year and be enrolled on an 'Alcoholics Anonymous’course where he is totally sober and can see the error of his ways? is that not rehabilitation?
or should we just let someone like him rot and release him after a year so he can go straight to the pub,get drunk and run over one of YOUR relatives when he drink drives his way home?

dont get me wrong, im not a do-gooder, i believe some should rot and i dont think we should shy away from telling them that they have done wrong.To be honest i think the USA does it quite well, i see programs where people get 2 years in the Seg (your SHU) that doesnt really happen here. People pussy around too much and feel sorry for some of the worlds worst criminals. But you cant tar everyone with the same brush

[/quote]

You sound like a reasonably guy but you are misguided. Almost 80% of all criminals who are paroled commit the same crime again within a few years of release. These folks are not going to be rehabilitated. It just doesn’t happen at a high rate. If a rapist was freed because he was “rehabilitated” and he raped your mom, sister, girl friend or whomever is close to you wouldn’t you be wishing then that he was left to “rot” in jail?

These guys are not rehabilitated as a rule.