Why do prisoners have rights?

The 8th amendment to the US Constitution reads:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

That's why prisoners have rights.

Because they're people.

It's that simple.

Ideally, prison does not punish but keeps dangerous people from hurting others. I'm all for prison being more comfortable, and having longer sentences.

Because some convictions are a mistake.

Many people have made good points that I overlooked in my haste. (And my opinion, by the way, was not influenced by any "macho revenge" factor that someone mentioned.)

Having watched a few of the MSNBC specials about "life behind bars," I guess my concern is rooted in seeing the power the inmates have to control their environment. It's as if the crime continues behind prison walls because the prisoners have what I would deem as excessive rights.

I'm sure it's a simplistic view on my part, but it seems that prison would have the intended effect (punishment through lack of freedom) if the system really put the clamps down. Seriously, there is no reason why prisoners should have access to items, people or situations that will allow them to:

• Make weapons

• Deal drugs or other contraband

• Form violent gangs

Again, the list goes on. Give them the absolute bare minimums they need to survive. They don’t need spacious quarters, TV, cigarettes, physical contact with visitors – They simply don’t need or deserve any luxuries. It is, after all, PRISON for godsake!

Most of the alienable rights granted to prisoners is a result of their overseer's efforts to keep them docile. A happy(er) prisoner gives you less problems in general.

a common theme that most of you are using as part of your argument is answering the question of why an individual is sent to prison in the first place. what is the goal the system wishes to achieve? some of you mentioned a deterrant, some rehabilitation. all of these are correct, by adding a few more.

by sending a person to prison, the system has the goal of hopfully reaching one of five goals:

deterrence: making and example of the prison for that prisoner, and their peers.

rehabilitation: to hopefully change the criminal propensities of the prisoner through counciling and treatment.

retribution: a fair and just sentence in proportion to the crime committed and the criminal's background and mental status.

restitution: force the prisoner, by court order, to pay the victim money owed to them

incapacitiation: render the prisoner unable to commit their crime again towards society. the death penalty is the ultimate form of incapacitation.

Shawshank wrote:

different view wrote:

Sometimes I feel similar, but what if it was your father/brother/friend? I am sure you would change your prespective. Try to look at the bigger picture than the narrow view. Locking a person in a cage with no outside contact would drive a person insane. Basically giving someone who steals a car a life sentence.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's the whole point. Crime will continue to proliferate until people are literally scared straight (pardon the clich?).

Punishments have to be incredibly harsh. Example: Any attempted murder or crime committed with a deadly weapon should be punishable by death - NO APPEALS!

I think you're a joke because your username references a charcter who was wrongfully convicted of murder, and in your opinion should have been executed.

shut it wrote:

so you never made a dumb decision when you were young? you mustve been the perfect child then am i right. no mistakes, no wrongs ever? wow your pretty perfect man.

Hmm... yep: made plenty of "dumb decisions." But, strangely enough, never any *illegal* decisions. Indeed, I generally avoided doing things that I knew to be illegal, and generally avoided those who did not.

Even during my time in the military--among a fairly rougg, but strangely law-abiding crowd--we obeyed the law.

Have I been drunk? Sure: but never got behind the wheel (which has meant some pretty long walks, btw).

Have I stolen anything? You mean from other than my sister when I was a boy? No, no I haven't.

Done drugs? Um...no, no I haven't.

Been in fights? Oh, yeah, but the MPs were fairly lenient (and no one got killed).

And lest you think my life has been a bore: I have, at various times, been a motorcyclist, a hang-glider, a skydiver, a scuba diver, a combat soldier, and have even raced (privately owned) cars at Watkins Glen; I have traveled on foot through Mexico and Latin America (and was not arrested), and vacationed in the Middle East (and, again, was not arrested).

In fact, no one I know has been arrested (or at least mentioned it), not even those soldiers I know who are a bit..."edgier" than I ever was (said one SF operative: "I get paid to do what I would be doin' anyway").

So: prisoners "rights?" Couldn't care less. If you have proven that you cannot "play nice" in society, then you should be removed from that society. Buh-bye.

Drug dealers for friends? Bud: you need to reassess your life.

Rehab? Sure, I believe in rehabilitation, but I more strongly believe in "three strikes you're dead...er...out." And my "opinion" would not change for fellow, friend, or family--cuz some things are just plain RIGHT and others are just plain WRONG.

Feel free to disagree but, like it or not, breaking what society has determined to be "laws" will eventually land you where you cannot hurt (or even, one hopes, inconvenience) the rest of us.

Have a nice day.

Three strikes, you're dead; for most offenses:

First offense: an incredibly harsh--but relatively short--prison sentence (similar to, say, Ft. Leavenworth, but without the meat and with some PSYOPS intervention). Record upon release clean except to note the stay; assistance in career re-education.

Second offense: a longer version of the first, with re-instatement of the record.

Third offense: erasure (i.e., death, either through incarceration or...more quickly).

That said: liberalization of many more "minor" offenses would help, but the idea remains the same.

And the guy who gets life for stealing, on his third offense, a donut? Uh...too bad: shoulda known better; buh-bye.

Sounds right in line with our friends in Iran.

you sound like a jackass

Simple answer: Law enforcement and punishment is an industry. It creates jobs and generates revenue. To completely deter criminality is to drive away "customers"

I kind of agree. I definitely think they should be able to do certain things like read and exercise, but it doesn't make sense to me that prisoners are able to sell drugs and run street gangs from inside prison.

The point of prison is to rehabilitate, not simply punish. If you threw everyone in a hole as you suggest, when they got out they would likely be bitter individuals with more of a penchant for crime. It's a proven fact that harsh punishments do not significantly deter crime.

By letting criminals live somewhat comfortably, you then have a shot at teaching them and molding them into productive citizens.

I could care less about the moral issue... the real issue are the taxpayers of America.

Innocent, law-abiding people pay for the local, state, and federal police forces through taxes to protect their rights.

If one of their rights is violated, depending on the sentence, the violator is sent to prison, where the tax payer has to put them up.

They already had to pay for the officers to arrest this person, they sometimes have to pay for the prosecution, sometimes have to pay for the repeal, they have to pay for the jail/prison, and now they are expected to pay for the luxury of the offender?

There\'s a differecne between doing something wrong and committing a crime, dumbass.

No, I never committed a crime when I was young or even at this age.

Whoever said there should be an IQ test to post on this board obviously had you in mind because you are one stupid son of a biatch.

mobile9 wrote:

I think you're a joke because your username references a charcter who was wrongfully convicted of murder, and in your opinion should have been executed.

Gee, moblow9, that's a really stimulating contribution you've made to the discussion. I'll bet you aced Debate in high school, didn't you?

i think wrote:

you sound like a jackass

Yes, to a certain segment, those who abide by the law, believe in the common good, and support individual rights, responsibilities, and consequences often do...

Have a nice day? All you did was compare your cushy happy go lucky lifestyle to those who, SUPRISE, grow up in places where the guy who committed a murder just a week ago lives right next door to you.

I council kids who live in violent and dangerous inner city neighborhoods. Imagine waking up, walking to school and seeing one of your peers walking aroudn the neighborhood. This kid doesn't do drugs, never got involved with anything illegal, mainly because your still fairly young, both 14 years of age.

You know this kid so you approach him and talk for a bit then head off to school. School ends you head back home and a few blocks away you see ambulance and police cars. You check the scene out and find the kid you were talking to dead, with multiple gunshots to the body. Why? A rival neighborhood gang mistook him for somebody else.

Sounds over the top? Keep dreaming, I've talked to countless kids whove witnessed situations just like that. And the sad thing is, they witnessed murder at much earlier ages.

Its not like these kids wake up one day, 16 years old and decide to be criminals. They've seen murders, shootings, you name it they saw it when they were 4, 5, 6 years old before they can really comprehend the value of life and death. Most of these kids come from broken homes, abusive homes and even the ones that done still have to deal with the outside negative influences.

One kid I talked to was a straight 'A' student who had to pack a gun everyday because he had been shot at by drug dealers from a rival neighborhood over turf wars. He was not in a gang, never sold or took drugs. He was a straight 'A' student and worked a full time job. Eventually he got sent to prison for attempted murder on a known drug dealer in the area. Why? Never explained to me but my guess is it was in defense.

Another kid got fired from his job because the manager suspected him for stealing from the company, no proof or valid evidence was ever presented except for the fact that someone saw a black kid running off with some merchandise, and seeing he was the only black kid that worked there they said it was him and fired him. A month later he got sent to juvenile detention center for dealing drugs. He never told me he was dealing until he got caught and he said it was because his mom wasnt able to pay the bills so out of desperation he thought he could sell some drugs make a quick few hundred and than help her catch up and in the process he got caught. Oh yea and when he was 9 he saw his older brother get murdered in a drive by.

Also comparing military service to these kids' environment is pathetic. You signed up to carry a gun and take orders to perform a job and duty. These kids didnt sign up to get shot at and have people threaten their lives on a daily basis.

Should I keep going? I have countless stories of kids I've seen kicked to the curb by upper class RACIST yuppies like you who think everybody grows up with a silver spoon in their mouths.

Go to hell, literally.