America's Most Dangerous Prisons

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:53 pm

I have watched several of these shows on television and have listened to the interviews with inmates and heard them express themselves and my first thought is ----kill em----get rid of them----who needs them---they contribute nothing and use up resources---they will not rehabilitate and don't even want to. Of course that will never happen even though they are not much more than a pack of rabid dogs that we would have no problem eliminating.

Are there bleeding hearts out there that feel these folks are worth keeping?

Please understand-------I am not talking about ALL prison population, just the ones as depicted on this particular TV show.

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:31 pm

They are not "a pack of rabid dogs". They are human beings. I also have watched some of these programs depicting prisoners. Many of them do seem to have no conscience, no remorse, no sense of responsibility or respect, and are consumed with hate. Were they born this way? I don't think so. They all began life as innocent babies. Human babies. They exist. Now, they are in prison for a reason. They commited terrible crimes. Doomed to live out their lives in a hell on earth. And, with this fact, society is doomed to take care of them during their incarceration and to keep them isolated. Sadly, there is no end to this story.

DrLeftover · Post by **DrLeftover** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:09 pm

Having WORKED in a state Medium and Maximum security prison for over ten years, with everybody from guys in for too many DUIs on up to multiple Murderers who were on Death Row (and several that did meet their Maker at the hands of the State), I must weigh in on this one, and try not to flame anybody regardless of what I think about their opinion. It is there opinion and those are like armpits, everybody has a couple, and some of them stink.

Most prisoners will serve their time and get out and join you in society again. Even those with a Life sentence will only serve an average of about 20 years (more or less), and then they too, will be out.

The majority of those who serve their time and get out, Do Not go back. Yes the average is around one in five or so who ends up back inside, but eighty percent make it. That's pretty danged good given the fact that "Rehabilitation" is a joke that liberals and social engineers tell to each other.

There are also those in prison who are indeed innocent, and not all of them get out on appeal. Some play the path of least resistance and simply do their time, then get out and move out of state. Yes, it happens, not often, but it does.

There is also a difference between a Convict and an Inmate. An Inmate is a young punk, probably in on drug related charges who thinks he's too good to be there, they'll call themselves "political prisoners" and things like that. They're most likely to be a jailhouse Muslim, and spend a lot of their time chasing 'girls' in an all male prison. If you get my drift. A convict is a hardened felon, career criminal, who is probably doing some hard time, and when he gets out, he will have learned what he did wrong to get caught, and won't do that again. An "inmate" will call himself a "gangsta" until he meets a "Con" who really is.

In the end, most convicts are more trustworthy than most Congressmen, and they will tell you the truth, because they don't have anything to lose except their honor.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:12 pm

Hi. Bleeding heart, here.

I don't know whether they are "worth keeping" or not, but I also believe in "Thou shalt not kill"

Period.

So, we are stuck with them. We are stuck, for now, with a lot of people who "we would have no problem eliminating."

But you have to draw the line somewhere, and once you allow the line to be moved, how far do we allow the line to be moved before we DO have someone we would have a problem eliminating?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:33 pm

DrLeftover;1298180 wrote: ...

In the end, most convicts are more trustworthy than most Congressmen, and they will tell you the truth, because they don't have anything to lose except their honor.

Sadly, too true.

I have known a lot of ex-cons.

Most of them want to be exactly that. EX-cons.

However, for the ones depicted in the show Lon refers to, these are definitely not you innocent, or your average inmate.

You don't want them back on the streets.

Ever.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:52 pm

who needs them?

just taking up tax payers dollars.

murderers, rapists and more.:rolleyes:

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:02 pm

DrLeftover;1298180 wrote: The majority of those who serve their time and get out, Do Not go back. Yes the average is around one in five or so who ends up back inside, but eighty percent make it. That's pretty danged good given the fact that "Rehabilitation" is a joke that liberals and social engineers tell to each other.

Pretty good? I find it to be an atrocious flaw in the system

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:13 pm

DrLeftover;1298180 wrote: Having WORKED in a state Medium and Maximum security prison for over ten years, with everybody from guys in for too many DUIs on up to multiple Murderers who were on Death Row (and several that did meet their Maker at the hands of the State), I must weigh in on this one, and try not to flame anybody regardless of what I think about their opinion. It is there opinion and those are like armpits, everybody has a couple, and some of them stink.

Most prisoners will serve their time and get out and join you in society again. Even those with a Life sentence will only serve an average of about 20 years (more or less), and then they too, will be out.

The majority of those who serve their time and get out, Do Not go back. Yes the average is around one in five or so who ends up back inside, but eighty percent make it. That's pretty danged good given the fact that "Rehabilitation" is a joke that liberals and social engineers tell to each other.

There are also those in prison who are indeed innocent, and not all of them get out on appeal. Some play the path of least resistance and simply do their time, then get out and move out of state. Yes, it happens, not often, but it does.

There is also a difference between a Convict and an Inmate. An Inmate is a young punk, probably in on drug related charges who thinks he's too good to be there, they'll call themselves "political prisoners" and things like that. They're most likely to be a jailhouse Muslim, and spend a lot of their time chasing 'girls' in an all male prison. If you get my drift. A convict is a hardened felon, career criminal, who is probably doing some hard time, and when he gets out, he will have learned what he did wrong to get caught, and won't do that again. An "inmate" will call himself a "gangsta" until he meets a "Con" who really is.

In the end, most convicts are more trustworthy than most Congressmen, and they will tell you the truth, because they don't have anything to lose except their honor.

Here again-----I am talking about the Hard Core felons as shown in a particular TV show "America's Most Dangerous Prisons"-----their recidivism rate is much higher than those you speak of. I honestly believe that there are some people on this planet that have forfeited their right to exist.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:17 pm

LarsMac;1298183 wrote: Hi. Bleeding heart, here.

I don't know whether they are "worth keeping" or not, but I also believe in "Thou shalt not kill"

Period.

So, we are stuck with them. We are stuck, for now, with a lot of people who "we would have no problem eliminating."

But you have to draw the line somewhere, and once you allow the line to be moved, how far do we allow the line to be moved before we DO have someone we would have a problem eliminating?

If you believe in "Thou Shall Not Kill"-----what is a suitable penalty for those that do? "An Eye For An Eye)?

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:34 pm

I would have no problem giving a child killer the lethal injection which IMO, is too merciful a death for them.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:01 pm

Lon;1298152 wrote: I have watched several of these shows on television and have listened to the interviews with inmates and heard them express themselves and my first thought is ----kill em----get rid of them----who needs them---they contribute nothing and use up resources---they will not rehabilitate and don't even want to. Of course that will never happen even though they are not much more than a pack of rabid dogs that we would have no problem eliminating.

Are there bleeding hearts out there that feel these folks are worth keeping?

Please understand-------I am not talking about ALL prison population, just the ones as depicted on this particular TV show.
We get a Programme here called 'America's Hardest' about your prisons. I've seen many Interviews with the Inmates who have raped, tortured, killed and maimed, not just once but serialy. Some show no remorse at all and I'm Inclined to think the same as you and ask 'What is the point'?.

They are not human beings... they are animals who rape, torture, murder and maim. God forbid they ever escaped, they would do It again In the blink of an eye.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:38 pm

LarsMac;1298183 wrote: Hi. Bleeding heart, here.

I don't know whether they are "worth keeping" or not, but I also believe in "Thou shalt not kill"

Period.

So, we are stuck with them. We are stuck, for now, with a lot of people who "we would have no problem eliminating."

But you have to draw the line somewhere, and once you allow the line to be moved, how far do we allow the line to be moved before we DO have someone we would have a problem eliminating?
I like you Lars

Lon;1298211 wrote: If you believe in "Thou Shall Not Kill"-----what is a suitable penalty for those that do? "An Eye For An Eye)?
If you believe a suitable punishment for killing is *cough* killing.....who kills the executioners ?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:42 pm

Bruv;1298233 wrote: If you believe a suitable punishment for killing is *cough* killing.....who kills the executioners ?

Speaking in divination, if a murderer was going to kill someone, and this would inevitably be proved true upon it's release, and you had no absolute ability to detain the subject would you execute the murderer?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:58 pm

K.Snyder....is English your second language ?

Many times I don't understand your drift at all.

I believe you are asking if I would kill someone that was known to be a future killer ?

But whatever you meant......the only time I believe killing is acceptable is when it is he or me or mine.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:02 pm

Bruv;1298244 wrote: K.Snyder....is English your second language ?

Many times I don't understand your drift at all.

I believe you are asking if I would kill someone that was known to be a future killer ?

But whatever you meant......the only time I believe killing is acceptable is when it is he or me or mine.

Where did you have a problem reading "Speaking in divination, if a murderer was going to kill someone, and this would inevitably be proved true upon it's release, and you had no absolute ability to detain the subject would you execute the murderer? "? Perhaps we can inch our way to it's meaning.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:05 pm

Bruv;1298244 wrote: I believe you are asking if I would kill someone that was known to be a future killer ?

Here maybe this will help,..

"I believe you are asking if I would kill someone that was known to be a future killer ?"

I would say yes but hypothetically you do not have the ability to detain the murderer, which I define "murderer" to be incredibly different than "killer".

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:10 pm

K.Snyder;1298247 wrote: Where did you have a problem reading "Speaking in divination, if a murderer was going to kill someone, and this would inevitably be proved true upon it's release, and you had no absolute ability to detain the subject would you execute the murderer? "? Perhaps we can inch our way to it's meaning.
I shall start at the beginning......

'Divination' is not a word I see used often, the sequence 'inevitably be proved true upon it's release,'.....I have problems with "its"

'It' being a person ? Who happens to be a preordained murderer, that it is impossible to detain ?

My answer No emphatically.

Too many imponderables.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:12 pm

Bruv;1298252 wrote: I shall start at the beginning......

'Divination' is not a word I see used often, the sequence 'inevitably be proved true upon it's release,'.....I have problems with "its"

'It' being a person ? Who happens to be a preordained murderer, that it is impossible to detain ?

My answer No emphatically.

Too many imponderables.

"It" was the murderer because I can't identify with it.

But I don't know of one person that could have managed to not put that together so I suppose you are the first.

Still having trouble understanding the question?

"Divination" I've no doubt you'd looked up

If it's hypothetical questions you have trouble with then I'm afraid we're at the end of our little tango here.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:23 pm

Now we are dancing ?

No I didn't look up anything.

I have been told my phraseology is hard to understand..... I strive to improve.

I don't identify with killing either.......but using 'it' to describe killers ?

Suppose 'some' killers are heroes who get medals.....while some are 'it' who get short shrift, and killed by other hero killers?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:27 pm

Bruv;1298257 wrote: Now we are dancing ?

No I didn't look up anything.

I have been told my phraseology is hard to understand..... I strive to improve.

I don't identify with killing either.......but using 'it' to describe killers ?

Suppose 'some' killers are heroes who get medals.....while some are 'it' who get short shrift, and killed by other hero killers?

It's not a hard concept to understand Bruv you're just dodging the question.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:30 pm

Bruv;1298257 wrote: Now we are dancing ?

No I didn't look up anything.

I have been told my phraseology is hard to understand..... I strive to improve.

I don't identify with killing either.......but using 'it' to describe killers ?

Suppose 'some' killers are heroes who get medals.....while some are 'it' who get short shrift, and killed by other hero killers?

And for the record I'd never said I couldn't identify with killing, I've killed before and can't say I won't again.

And no I don't use "it" to describe killers I use "it" to describe individual beings that murder.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:47 pm

K.Snyder;1298235 wrote: Speaking in divination, if a murderer was going to kill someone, and this would inevitably be proved true upon it's release, and you had no absolute ability to detain the subject would you execute the murderer?

Another record is that "it's" in "would inevitably be proved true upon it's release" would otherwise be construed as "news" if one weren't of the mind to dodge the specific question knowing full well the meaning of it, lest English be your second language or among many, only proves you wish to dance.

No thanks

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:33 pm

Lon;1298211 wrote: If you believe in "Thou Shall Not Kill"-----what is a suitable penalty for those that do? "An Eye For An Eye)?

It is a difficult position. I know that to take a life is a terrible thing. I know it is not my place to judge and mete justice.

For that, I thank God, as I am certain that I would make a poor judge.

We are back to: Where do you draw the line?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:51 pm

K.Snyder;1298263 wrote: Another record is that "it's" in "would inevitably be proved true upon it's release" would otherwise be construed as "news" if one weren't of the mind to dodge the specific question knowing full well the meaning of it, lest English be your second language or among many, only proves you wish to dance.

No thanks
Allow me to interject.

This is not a new question. And the problem is not a new one.

I can tell you what I would do, or not do as an hypothetical situation, but unless actually faced with the opportunity and choice, I really am only giving my opinion.

Do you take a life to save a life? To save several lives? To save ten lives? a hundred lives? To avenge a life? Many lives?

Where do you draw the line? For whom do you have the authority to draw the line, and From whom do you receive the authority for such a decision?

Again, where do YOU draw the line?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:00 pm

LarsMac;1298273 wrote: Allow me to interject.

This is not a new question. And the problem is not a new one.

I can tell you what I would do, or not do as an hypothetical situation, but unless actually faced with the opportunity and choice, I really am only giving my opinion.

Do you take a life to save a life? To save several lives? To save ten lives? a hundred lives? To avenge a life? Many lives?

Where do you draw the line? For whom do you have the authority to draw the line, and From whom do you receive the authority for such a decision?

Again, where do YOU draw the line?

Wow simple.

I save a life that is threatened by the less innocent and use any means necessary to achieve it.

Personally there is no such thing as "drawing a line"...The concept is inherently flawed. One either knows of a specific time to save a life or not and only one instance is a moral obligation to do so.

If you can manage a hypothetical scenario so as to create reason among any moral human being we can go from there.

But the question you'd asked in generalization demands an all out "NO!" just for one to be moral enough to not blow somebodies freakin brains out by accident, confusion, or pure blood born ignorance.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:24 pm

K.Snyder;1298274 wrote: Wow simple.

I save a life that is threatened by the less innocent and use any means necessary to achieve it.

Personally there is no such thing as "drawing a line"...The concept is inherently flawed. One either knows of a specific time to save a life or not and only one instance is a moral obligation to do so.

If you can manage a hypothetical scenario so as to create reason among any moral human being we can go from there.

But the question you'd asked in generalization demands an all out "NO!" just for one to be moral enough to not blow somebodies freakin brains out by accident, confusion, or pure blood born ignorance.

Accidents are basically irrelevant to moral stance.

Though, it could be construed as a moral obligation to take proper care to prevent accidents.

However, if you moral guidance allows you to take a life and feel good about it, more power to you. Perhaps you want the job.

I pass.

My morality says that taking a life is wrong. period.

Now if you are in a situation where you can choose to take a life or allow a life to be taken, I see the dilemma.

The question has come up often. The famous, "would you kill Hitler?" game.

Bottom line, we cannot really see the future, so the question is invalid.

WE are here in this moment, and all else is illusion.

As I once said in another post, if you actually have time to think about it, killing is not necessary.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:59 am

LarsMac;1298269 wrote: It is a difficult position. I know that to take a life is a terrible thing. I know it is not my place to judge and mete justice.

For that, I thank God, as I am certain that I would make a poor judge.

We are back to: Where do you draw the line?
I believe their are two kinds of killers. Those that truely did not mean to kill and those who commit pre-meditated murder.

Those that truely did not mean to kill can be re-habilitated and are un-likely to kill again. The animals who pre-meditate torture, Rape, and Murder, show no Remorse and would be a danger to society should be gassed to save tax-payers the burden and to be sure they never escape and claim another victem. Look at the Carnage Ted Bundy caused after he had escaped from custody. They should have fried him In the first Instance.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:38 am

K.Snyder;1298235 wrote: Speaking in divination, if a murderer was going to kill someone, and this would inevitably be proved true upon it's release, and you had no absolute ability to detain the subject would you execute the murderer?

I have found you guilty of circumlocution (yes I did look it up)

I sentence myself to never enter into discourse with you again.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:48 am

oscar;1298283 wrote: I believe their are two kinds of killers. Those that truely did not mean to kill and those who commit pre-meditated murder.

Those that truely did not mean to kill can be re-habilitated and are un-likely to kill again. The animals who pre-meditate torture, Rape, and Murder, show no Remorse and would be a danger to society should be gassed to save tax-payers the burden and to be sure they never escape and claim another victem. Look at the Carnage Ted Bundy caused after he had escaped from custody. They should have fried him In the first Instance.

I don't disagree with you, actually. Had someone, in the moment, taken action to end the lives of these people, and taken the responsibility, they would be no more, and the question posed by Lon would not have come up.

Now we have them incarcerated and as long as they stay there, they are not a danger to anyone except their keepers, and each other.

So, as a civilized society, we are stuck with this situation. We cannot, in good conscience, simply dispose of them.

Well, perhaps there are those here who could make that decision, and expect others to carry it out, thinking the blood would not be on their hands, but I certainly am not among that group.

IT is easy to say that "Someone should do something" but much more difficult to be that "Someone"

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:56 am

Bruv;1298328 wrote: I have found you guilty of circumlocution (yes I did look it up)

I sentence myself to never enter into discourse with you again.

:wah: Suit yourself.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:16 am

LarsMac;1298275 wrote: Now if you are in a situation where you can choose to take a life or allow a life to be taken, I see the dilemma. Anytime "dilemma" is used in reference to "if you are in a situation where you can choose to take a life or allow a life to be taken" regarding an innocent person being harmed is one of the most immoral stances that exist. I've absolutely no dilemma in preventing the loss of a person of innocence.

LarsMac;1298275 wrote:

The question has come up often. The famous, "would you kill Hitler?" game.

Bottom line, we cannot really see the future, so the question is invalid. So make it valid. All one need do is create the answer to observe the integrity of the questions.

I sincerely don't see what's so difficult about that concept.

Here' I'll start.

Truth #1 Hitler will kill many millions of innocent people in the future

Truth #2 Killing hitler before he kills those people will prevent the loss of innocent life

Conclusion - I blow hitler's brains out and go indulge meself on a cupcake

People just fear "hell" to the point they can't think logically.

LarsMac;1298275 wrote: WE are here in this moment, and all else is illusion....

LarsMac;1298275 wrote:

As I once said in another post, if you actually have time to think about it, killing is not necessary.Thinking about killing is never necessary is correct. res ipsa loquitur. What many don't realize is that hesitation serves to assist in the inappropriate murder of the innocent and I find to be no different than the act of murder.

The overall conclusion is that if murderers are released and they murder again then those responsible for the creatures' release are damn well murderers as well

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:39 am

K.Snyder;1298347 wrote: Anytime "dilemma" is used in reference to "if you are in a situation where you can choose to take a life or allow a life to be taken" regarding an innocent person being harmed is one of the most immoral stances that exist. I've absolutely no dilemma in preventing the loss of a person of innocence.

You have assumed the innocence of the third party.

K.Snyder;1298347 wrote:

So make it valid. All one need do is create the answer to observe the integrity of the questions.

I sincerely don't see what's so difficult about that concept.

Here' I'll start.

Truth #1 Hitler will kill many millions of innocent people in the future

Truth #2 Killing hitler before he kills those people will prevent the loss of innocent life

Conclusion - I blow hitler's brains out and go indulge meself on a cupcake

You also assume that in Hitler's absence, these people are to go on to live innocent lives.

K.Snyder;1298347 wrote:

People just fear "hell" to the point they can't think logically.

Fear of hell is certainly not my motivation for this.

K.Snyder;1298347 wrote:

...

Thinking about killing is never necessary is correct. res ipsa loquitur. What many don't realize is that hesitation serves to assist in the inappropriate murder of the innocent and I find to be no different than the act of murder.

The overall conclusion is that if murderers are released and they murder again then those responsible for the creatures' release are damn well murderers as well

I am glad you have it all worked out.

So you have a fairly clear distinction between "murder" and "kill" and are willing to take action on your convictions?

DrLeftover · Post by **DrLeftover** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:48 am

Interesting turn of the discussion.

To which I will offer this.

I can and will kill without a second thought to protect myself, my family, or other innocents.

I will not Murder.

There is a difference.

Those who do murder and meet certain requirements, such as during the commission of another felony, can be put to death in this state, several that I have known from my previous choice of employment have been dealt with thusly.

One of those was James Allen Red Dog. Mr. Red Dog was a habitual offender who got out of another prison on a plea deal when he snitched on a prison gang. He was put in witness protection and sent to Delaware without any word to the authorities in this state. He subsequently raped and killed again. He was captured, tried, sentenced, and executed after a round or two of appeals.

You may search at your leisure for notes on his case.

Mr. Red Dog has been Deterred from ever committing another crime.

That is the only sure way punishment as a deterrent works.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:07 pm

LarsMac;1298332 wrote: I don't disagree with you, actually. Had someone, in the moment, taken action to end the lives of these people, and taken the responsibility, they would be no more, and the question posed by Lon would not have come up.

Now we have them incarcerated and as long as they stay there, they are not a danger to anyone except their keepers, and each other.

So, as a civilized society, we are stuck with this situation. We cannot, in good conscience, simply dispose of them.

Well, perhaps there are those here who could make that decision, and expect others to carry it out, thinking the blood would not be on their hands, but I certainly am not among that group.

IT is easy to say that "Someone should do something" but much more difficult to be that "Someone" I am myself In avery difficult situation at the moment. My sisters young boy at 16 years old Is In prison awaiting trial, charged with murder. One of his co-defendents Is 14 years old.

All of my life I have agreed with the death penalty being re-Introduced Into Britain but what do you do when It's your own flesh and blood.

I can't say too much due to Sub Judice Laws here but I visit him every week and I know that he did not go out that night to kill an Innocent man. He has denied murder and pleaded guilty to Manslaughter but It Is now up to a Jury to decide In September. I suppose something Is that the moment he heard the man had died, he confessed to his part In It for the benifit of the victems family.... That's something I suppose.

That's one example of some-one who did not mean to kill but I read a very harrowing story In one women's magazine here only a few weeks ago.

In the States, a group of black car jackers who had staged extremely violent car jackings prior stopped a car at the lights with a young couple Inside. They beat the young man to death In front of his girlfriend, trussed her up In the position of a suckling pig, gang raped her, battered her, mutilated her genitals and rectum with a chair leg, poured bleach on her genitals to remove evidence, and finally threw her In a dumpster. By some Miracle she survived and police arrested the entire gang. Now, they are the waste of time that should be fried.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:04 pm

You get no argument from me that there are people in prison who have little reason to live and little justification for their existence.

However, killing them now will do little to solve any of the problems that created them and that will create more in the future.

We cannot lock them up, now, and decide later that we want to get rid of them.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:44 pm

LarsMac;1298419 wrote: You get no argument from me that there are people in prison who have little reason to live and little justification for their existence.

However, killing them now will do little to solve any of the problems that created them and that will create more in the future. We cannot lock them up, now, and decide later that we want to get rid of them.

So... What do you suggest Is the answer for serial Murders, child killers and sicko's?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:58 pm

LarsMac;1298419 wrote: You get no argument from me that there are people in prison who have little reason to live and little justification for their existence.

However, killing them now will do little to solve any of the problems that created them and that will create more in the future.

We cannot lock them up, now, and decide later that we want to get rid of them.

Although killing this scum would not solve any of the problems that created their incarceration it would solve many economic problems created by warehousing them, not to mention the emotional and mental satisfaction many of us would get in getting rid of them.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:23 pm

Lon;1298427 wrote: Although killing this scum would not solve any of the problems that created their incarceration it would solve many economic problems created by warehousing them, not to mention the emotional and mental satisfaction many of us would get in getting rid of them.
As far as I'm concerned Lonnie... they lose their human rights as a human the moment they kill Intentionally.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:51 pm

LarsMac;1298357 wrote: You have assumed the innocence of the third party.No such thing as a third party Lars. "You're" either a good person or "you're" evil. Anything that might be construed as something else defines hesitation and it gets innocent people killed, serves in no way different than murdering others themselves, and I despise it. Will I know what to do in all situations? No. But you can bet yourself I'll logically be ready to assess any given situation before hand which is a hell of alot more than any agnostic can say.

LarsMac;1298357 wrote:

You also assume that in Hitler's absence, these people are to go on to live innocent lives.You're no more psychic than I so why assume they wouldn't? With your mentality on this you might as well attempt to jail people before they commit a crime. Not the kind of World I want to live in and thank God I don't and you're in the minority relative to "You also assume that in Hitler's absence, these people are to go on to live innocent lives."

LarsMac;1298357 wrote:

I am glad you have it all worked out. I've never not had it worked out Lars.

LarsMac;1298357 wrote:

So you have a fairly clear distinction between "murder" and "kill" and are willing to take action on your convictions?No, not "fairly",.."Clearly",..not "fairly".

On that perhaps we can get to the point. Everyone "are willing to take action on your convictions" otherwise no one would move around physically and do things. What's funny is that the majority of the World are "religious" yet far too many want to pick and choice what they're to be morally certain about. Every thing you do, Lars, on a day to day basis represents who you are intellectually/morally down to how you brush your teeth and how you open doors. We don't pick and choose our moral alignment based off of individual precedents. It's why you say things like "You have assumed the innocence of the third party" and I surely don't. There quite frankly is no third party

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:29 pm

K.Snyder;1298457 wrote: No such thing as a third party Lars. "You're" either a good person or "you're" evil. Anything that might be construed as something else defines hesitation and it gets innocent people killed, serves in no way different than murdering others themselves, and I despise it. Will I know what to do in all situations? No. But you can bet yourself I'll logically be ready to assess any given situation before hand which is a hell of alot more than any agnostic can say.

The third party I referred to was the "innocent life" you plan to save by killing the one you have deemed to be the murderer.

K.Snyder;1298457 wrote:

You're no more psychic than I so why assume they wouldn't? With your mentality on this you might as well attempt to jail people before they commit a crime. Not the kind of World I want to live in and thank God I don't and you're in the minority relative to "You also assume that in Hitler's absence, these people are to go on to live innocent lives."

You are correct. we are not psychic, so we cannot know before hand what someone is going to do. And we cannot know that killing Hitler, or Stalin, or Ted Bundy, is going to actually save their future victims.

K.Snyder;1298457 wrote:

I've never not had it worked out Lars.

No, not "fairly",.."Clearly",..not "fairly".

So, you have very well defined sense of when to kill, and when not to. Good for you. I hope that always works for you.

I can remember when it worked for me, too. until I was close to your age, I guess.

So you are prepared for the responsibility that goes with that, as well?

Have you ever actually faced the choice, yet?

K.Snyder;1298457 wrote:

On that perhaps we can get to the point. Everyone "are willing to take action on your convictions" otherwise no one would move around physically and do things. What's funny is that the majority of the World are "religious" yet far too many want to pick and choice what they're to be morally certain about. Every thing you do, Lars, on a day to day basis represents who you are intellectually/morally down to how you brush your teeth and how you open doors. We don't pick and choose our moral alignment based off of individual precedents. It's why you say things like "You have assumed the innocence of the third party" and I surely don't. There quite frankly is no third party
A minor editorial note.

Everyone "are willing to take action on your convictions"
Everyone should be willing to take action on their convictions.

I agree.

As for moral alignment, most of us develop ours from or family, in one way or another, and refine it as we move through life. A assure you that mine is not the same as it was when I was 30, or 20, Thank God.

If you think yours will NEVER change, I suggest you might be in for a surprise. Good luck with that.

We have wafted far from the OP, in this discussion, but I have enjoyed it so far.

You are a Noble. Don't let anyone tell you differently. I admire that in you. I pray that you are always up to the challenges that will present to you.

Back to the OP, we have our opinions of what should be done with the killers and monsters that find their way into human society. It is a puzzle that will still around after we have passed on, I suspect.

When I lived on a farm, vermin were to be dealt with swiftly, not captured and stuck in cages, to become someone Else's problems.

They certainly should not be relegated to being a source of entertainment for the bored channel-surfer.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:37 pm

oscar;1298423 wrote: So... What do you suggest Is the answer for serial Murders, child killers and sicko's?
Well, were it up to me, I would not have locked them up in the first place. Fortunately for them, I have never been in charge.

Lon;1298427 wrote: Although killing this scum would not solve any of the problems that created their incarceration it would solve many economic problems created by warehousing them, not to mention the emotional and mental satisfaction many of us would get in getting rid of them.

It will be a sad day when we have reduced ANY human life to its economic quotient.

The whole point I am trying to get to is that when you are ready to take a life, you should be prepared to take the responsibility. This is not something that "someone" needs to take care of to help you feel better.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:46 pm

Lon;1298427 wrote: Although killing this scum would not solve any of the problems that created their incarceration it would solve many economic problems created by warehousing them, not to mention the emotional and mental satisfaction many of us would get in getting rid of them.

This is a moral blunder when applied to a society that can afford to keep them detained.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:47 pm

LarsMac;1298477 wrote: Well, were it up to me, I would not have locked them up in the first place. Fortunately for them, I have never been in charge.

It will be a sad day when we have reduced ANY human life to its economic quotient.

The whole point I am trying to get to is that when you are ready to take a life, you should be prepared to take the responsibility. This is not something that "someone" needs to take care of to help you feel better.

One of the things that stands out In the TV prog we get here about your prisons Is the danger the Officers are constantly In.

I was horrified at one recent episode and how these Inmates fashion weapons out of any-thing and nothing. Even a toothbrush was melted down to a spike to stab a warden.

Why should these guys who are just doing a job to support their families be faced with such violence even possibly death every day? I applaud them.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:55 pm

oscar;1298480 wrote: One of the things that stands out In the TV prog we get here about your prisons Is the danger the Officers are constantly In.

I was horrified at one recent episode and how these Inmates fashion weapons out of any-thing and nothing. Even a toothbrush was melted down to a spike to stab a warden.

Why should these guys who are just doing a job to support their families be faced with such violence even possibly death every day? I applaud them.

Most prison officers know how to handle situations and the prisoners because 99% of their job is to study and know each of their behavior. When considering this I don't see the job being overly dangerous at all. Especially when lifers will be the ones most likely to attempt anything that horrific and when they do it's mostly on other inmates because they know attacking a guard will see them get absolutely no privileges from the day forward.

I'd be surprised if the job of prison officer was even remotely dangerous let alone one of moderate proportion.

Like I said, I'd rather dowse myself in honey and lay on a red fire ant hill than to be in the shoes of a convicted pedophile for even one day! :yh_rotfl :yh_wink :yh_kiss

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:09 pm

K.Snyder;1298486 wrote: Most prison officers know how to handle situations and the prisoners because 99% of their job is to study and know each of their behavior. When considering this I don't see the job being overly dangerous at all. Especially when lifers will be the ones most likely to attempt anything that horrific and when they do it's mostly on other inmates because they know attacking a guard will see them get absolutely no privileges from the day forward.

I'd be surprised if the job of prison officer was even remotely dangerous let alone one of moderate proportion.

Well, you should read these reports.

http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/marquart.pdf

Improving Correctional Officer Safety: Reducing Inmate Weapons | Legal from AllBusiness.com

I have known several prison guards. It is not easy work.

BTW, there are a lot of prisoners who could give a flying F

about privileges.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:14 pm

K.Snyder;1298486 wrote: Most prison officers know how to handle situations and the prisoners because 99% of their job is to study and know each of their behavior. When considering this I don't see the job being overly dangerous at all. Especially when lifers will be the ones most likely to attempt anything that horrific and when they do it's mostly on other inmates because they know attacking a guard will see them get absolutely no privileges from the day forward.

I'd be surprised if the job of prison officer was even remotely dangerous let alone one of moderate proportion.

Like I said, I'd rather dowse myself in honey and lay on a red fire ant hill than to be in the shoes of a convicted pedophile for even one day! :yh_rotfl :yh_wink :yh_kiss

I agree its the inmates that always stir up the ****.

lifers for murdering have nothing to loose and nothing else to do.

The prison guards have little to fear, as you said they are extremely well trained, sure once in a while they will get hurt......all part of the games in prison walls.

now if they would just kill off the murderers, rapists etc. instead of taxpayers paying for them to live!:-5

honestly, what good are they doing alive?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:33 pm

LarsMac;1298489 wrote: Well, you should read these reports.

http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/marquart.pdf

Improving Correctional Officer Safety: Reducing Inmate Weapons | Legal from AllBusiness.com

I have known several prison guards. It is not easy work.

BTW, there are a lot of prisoners who could give a flying F

about privileges.

Further, suicide represents ten percent of all inmate deaths. Most striking is the fact that inmate deaths from homicide represent roughly two percent of all inmate deaths. Hispanic inmates had the highest homicide rate (7 per 100,000 inmates) followed by white inmates (5 per 100,000 inmates) and black inmates (2 per 100,000 inmates). Roughly 61% of all prison homicides between 2001 – 2002 occurred in a prisoner’s cell or room. Most important, the prison homicide rate (4 per 100,000 inmates) was lower than that for the U.S. population. The data underscore the point that violent death in prison (offenders murdered at the hands of other offenders) is a rare event given the millions of inmate- inmate interactions on any day in American prisons. Not all violence in prison results in death. Due to the close quarters and captive population, fights and altercations occur. A report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics

The data presented in the figure are state prison inmate mortality rates, per 100,000 inmates. For example the homicide rate for inmates in 2002 was 4/100,000 inmates, the rate for natural causes was 198/100,000 inmates, and the rate for all causes was 246/100,000 inmates. See C. Mumola. 2005. “Suicide and Homicide in State Prisons and Local Jails. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001) indicates that in 1997, 28% of state and 26% of federal inmates reported being injured since admission to prison. Of those reporting an injury, only 10% reported that the injury was fight-related. In short, while fighting occurs, few inmates report any kind of injuries. The latter data on prison homicides and fights leading to injuries suggest that prison security staffs, in spite of an older static offender population, are maintaining order and safety in America’s prisons. I am not suggesting that we should solely rely on reported violence. Countless rule violations go unreported. However, America’s prisons are not “killing fields or places of abject violence, disarray, and horror. In terms of sexual assault, recent prison data indicate that in 2004 there were 3,456 allegations of prison sexual assault, and 611 were substantiated, of which 209 were inmate-on-inmate incidents and 402 involved staff-on- inmate sexual contact/misconduct. The primary reason for the relatively low level of murders and fights with injuries can be attributed to such staff actions as ensuring proper offender classification and the diligent supervision of the offender population. Overall, the American prison officer, male or female, is doing an admirable job under the circumstances of massive organizational growth, the unrelenting sensationalism of crime and violence, punitive sentencing policies, and the reduction of institutional programming. http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/marquart.pdf The first report rather backs up the fact that corrections facility officers are not in any sort of immediate danger.

While the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted report provides detailed insight into the nature and types of assaults on police officers, there are no comparable details currently maintained for assaults on correctional officers. In 1988, 23 correctional officers were attacked with weapons while 123 were attacked without weapons. In 1990, the last year that data were collected by the Department of Justice, there were 185 assaults on federal correctional officers. Between 1990 and 1995, there was a 33 percent increase in the number of assaults by inmates on correctional facility staff. In 1990, there were 10,731 reported assaults by inmates on correctional facility staff; in 1995, there were 14,165 reported assaults. The nature of the assaults has become more severe as well. In 1990, none of the reported assaults resulted in the death of the staff member who was assaulted. By comparison, in 1995, 14 staff members were killed as a result of the assault. Improving Correctional Officer Safety: Reducing Inmate Weapons | Legal from AllBusiness.com The second states a small increase in violence but only expresses "assault" as not being very definitive in the least as highlighted. All the second illustrates is "assault" which can be anything from one toothbrush waiving incident to someone wiping sh*t on a corrections officer ending with 14 deaths overall in 1995. The year was 1995 and compared to the fact there were absolutely no correctional officers killed by inmates in 1990 and only 4 in 2004 I have to say this is more schizophrenic than a badger on crystal meth laced with PCP.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:07 pm

K.Snyder;1298498 wrote: The first report rather backs up the fact that corrections facility officers are not in any sort of immediate danger.

The second states a small increase in violence but only expresses "assault" as not being very definitive in the least as highlighted. All the second illustrates is "assault" which can be anything from one toothbrush waiving incident to someone wiping sh*t on a corrections officer ending with 14 deaths overall in 1995. The year was 1995 and compared to the fact there were absolutely no correctional officers killed by inmates in 1990 and only 4 in 2004 I have to say this is more schizophrenic than a badger on crystal meth laced with PCP.

LOL

The two reports are not meant to be related.

The increase in prison population is one thing.

The stats on staff injuries is another.

As prison population increases, the demands of the staff also increase.

So only four deaths in 2004 means the the job is safe?

The prisoner/guard ratio has also increased dramatically.

Just wanted to give you a quick snapshot of the general prison thing.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:24 pm

LarsMac;1298502 wrote: LOL

The two reports are not meant to be related.

The increase in prison population is one thing.

The stats on staff injuries is another.

As prison population increases, the demands of the staff also increase.

So only four deaths in 2004 means the the job is safe?

The prisoner/guard ratio has also increased dramatically.

Just wanted to give you a quick snapshot of the general prison thing.

Nothing's safe. All one can do is go about their daily lives asking themselves if doing anything is worth the risks associated with it and those 4 blatantly chose to accept those risks. Much like automobile racing.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:04 pm

Lon;1298209 wrote: I honestly believe that there are some people on this planet that have forfeited their right to exist.

Yes, I believe you are correct. Still theres this part of me I can't deny. The compassion part. The part that still believes that under all the layers of filth lies an innocence. The God part of ourselves.

I don't have hate in my life anymore but I know what that feels like. By having compassion for those that couldn't find it within their own selves to spare a life or walk away or let go of the rage and ego, that part of me allows myself to live in peace.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense but what I'm trying to say is that if I become OK with killing another soul then I think it will degrade my own sense of purpose and journey toward being a peaceful and loving person with hopes of attaining some worthwhile wisdom for myself along the way.