going back to when I first started posting here, I am anti DP.
and to bring in another case now from more recent times, that stance was challenged to the max recently at the young soldier and father of a 2 year old little boy, who had his chopped off in broad daylight in London in full view of passers by, because his muslim attackers didn't like his t shirt.
those attackers proudly stood in the street justifying their actions, and challenged police with machetes until they were shot down and remanded.
fast forward two months and one failed to follow orders in custody, and was physically restrained with force - he lost a tooth, he is suing the prison service.
im sorry but that is a test, a massive test of my patience.....
Murder becoming commonplace. A new way to express yourself is to chop some random person's head off and parade around drenched in their blood while spouting your rhetoric.
And then demand your rights while spending time in prison.
Sorry. You have no more rights. You forfeited your rights when you trampled all over everybody else's.
people should always have rights, NO MATTER WHAT. thinking otherwise gives rise to racism, genocide, etc.
Woahhhh
Nope don't follow this either. The concept I understand ... Putting it into practice however .... No way can I compute
Lets take the bastard referred to above who chopped that mans head off in the street. When he chose to subject that young man to that fate, and subjected young children to seeing it he handed in his rights card
Yeah it's not as easy to have a rule on a case by case basis but I truely believe that man deserves nothing ... Absolutely nothing ....
Someone can rape, murder, and mutilate someone... then expect to be treated with dignity?
No. Not there with you, man.
I'm not sure how you draw a parallel between the rise of racism and genocide if a society strips a homicidal maniac of their rights. This is a stretch to say the least.
because if you allow one person who belongs to a certain group to be stripped of their rights, any group, then it's a slippery slope to let it happen to another group....then another.....then another......
I've mentioned this example several times, but here it is again: Saddam Hussein was a monster of a human being. The way he was put to death was a dark moment for all democracy. A man who committed such heinous acts against the human race should have been treated the OPPOSITE, not the same. The cycle of violence and hatred begets itself. Nothing was accomplished that day but blood lust.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Nope don't follow this either. The concept I understand ... Putting it into practice however .... No way can I compute
Lets take the bastard referred to above who chopped that mans head off in the street. When he chose to subject that young man to that fate, and subjected young children to seeing it he handed in his rights card
Yeah it's not as easy to have a rule on a case by case basis but I truely believe that man deserves nothing ... Absolutely nothing ....
and so who then gets to decide where the line is drawn on when someone's right and/or basic dignities are taken away? dependent on crime? upbringing/familial history? because that's exactly what would occur. and tell me, what purpose does it serve to do so? not everyone deserves the same sentence, but everyone deserves the same basic rights.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I do believe these monsters have rights, even though it sickens me. That these criminals are afforded attorneys, trials, appeals...all the due process of law...this is imperative. The death penalty can only be justified when these conditions are met. We are not a mob lynching people in the street.
Look... we are at each other's throats here. I'm not having a good time with the 'spirit' of our exchanges. We entered this argument knowing full well that we were far apart on this issue and likely always will be. I can respect your point of view even though I'm not positive you respect mine. Bottom line: we are entitled to our opinions and can remain passionate about them if that is our desire. It's not us that are committing murders. Despite what has been written that might suggest otherwise, we are both interested in the welfare of our fellow man. These truths alone should be enough to keep things civil.
I am willing to engage in the discussion, but would prefer to do so without any condescending tones reflecting a lack of respect for the other person. So... I will be careful to write posts that concern themselves with the argument and that have nothing to do with the person. I hope you can do the same.
In answer to your question (and post)... if you look back at the post where I quoted myself... I prefaced it as 'fluff'. I did so because I considered and called the philosophical quotation you posted as 'fluff' beforehand. I felt that necessary because I didn't want to come across like I was simply dismissing philosophy attached to the side of the debate I opposed. I offered a slice of philosophy supporting my side of the debate and dismissed all philosophy because I am not an idealist as much as I'm a realist. Just because things sound good does not mean they are practical.
Fair enough. Apologies for coming off a bit over-angsty. And the 'idiot' thing was an honest mistake. i wouldn't call you that. You're a good egg.
Nope don't follow this either. The concept I understand ... Putting it into practice however .... No way can I compute
Lets take the bastard referred to above who chopped that mans head off in the street. When he chose to subject that young man to that fate, and subjected young children to seeing it he handed in his rights card
Yeah it's not as easy to have a rule on a case by case basis but I truely believe that man deserves nothing ... Absolutely nothing ....
and so who then gets to decide where the line is drawn on when someone's right and/or basic dignities are taken away? dependent on crime? upbringing/familial history? because that's exactly what would occur. and tell me, what purpose does it serve to do so? not everyone deserves the same sentence, but everyone deserves the same basic rights.
I completely understand you are right on this, I knew this response was coming before I posted, and I knew full well this is the response demanded of any democratic system, but when adding my own personal feelings into a crime of this nature it is not always so easy to be as objectively rational.
again you are right, no question, and there can be no argument against what you say.
But with a crime of that nature, it is very difficult to remain so level headed. Perhaps I let my emotions overtake momentarily.
That mans actions were so evil, so so evil......if we are to believe the media he has not conformed to prison life, has been objectional, obtuse, and downright uncooperative, and has had to be physically restrained......and now he wants to sue. Basic rights are fine, but this man is taking the piss. But again Im not arguing with you, he has to have the right to do that, otherwise serious problems follow. Its still not hard to swallow.
somewhere in London, there a two year old boy who probably still has no idea his Daddy will never come home and cuddle him again.....he probably watches the door sometimes expecting him to wander him......
Look... we are at each other's throats here. I'm not having a good time with the 'spirit' of our exchanges. We entered this argument knowing full well that we were far apart on this issue and likely always will be. I can respect your point of view even though I'm not positive you respect mine. Bottom line: we are entitled to our opinions and can remain passionate about them if that is our desire. It's not us that are committing murders. Despite what has been written that might suggest otherwise, we are both interested in the welfare of our fellow man. These truths alone should be enough to keep things civil.
I am willing to engage in the discussion, but would prefer to do so without any condescending tones reflecting a lack of respect for the other person. So... I will be careful to write posts that concern themselves with the argument and that have nothing to do with the person. I hope you can do the same.
In answer to your question (and post)... if you look back at the post where I quoted myself... I prefaced it as 'fluff'. I did so because I considered and called the philosophical quotation you posted as 'fluff' beforehand. I felt that necessary because I didn't want to come across like I was simply dismissing philosophy attached to the side of the debate I opposed. I offered a slice of philosophy supporting my side of the debate and dismissed all philosophy because I am not an idealist as much as I'm a realist. Just because things sound good does not mean they are practical.
Fair enough. Apologies for coming off a bit over-angsty. And the 'idiot' thing was an honest mistake. i wouldn't call you that. You're a good egg.
Nope don't follow this either. The concept I understand ... Putting it into practice however .... No way can I compute
Lets take the bastard referred to above who chopped that mans head off in the street. When he chose to subject that young man to that fate, and subjected young children to seeing it he handed in his rights card
Yeah it's not as easy to have a rule on a case by case basis but I truely believe that man deserves nothing ... Absolutely nothing ....
and so who then gets to decide where the line is drawn on when someone's right and/or basic dignities are taken away? dependent on crime? upbringing/familial history? because that's exactly what would occur. and tell me, what purpose does it serve to do so? not everyone deserves the same sentence, but everyone deserves the same basic rights.
Key phrase: same basic rights.
If we are not executing sadists like I feel we should... then food, water, showers, and a toilet. Let's not go too far such as we did with Clifford Olson and all the luxuries we felt necessary for him as he did his time.
We paid that guy cash so he could tell us where his victims laid. We placed him in isolation because, of course, the other prisoners would have none of his existence. I feel we should have placed him in general population. And I feel that if he was a bit more cooperative and offered the resting places of the children he raped and murdered without squeezing the people of British Columbia... then we could have looked at a safer place to spend the next 30 years. But no... the people so concerned with his rights would have none of that.
In hindsight, this statement could have been offered to Olson at the time of sentencing: "Clifford... you have raped, tortured and murdered several children. Your guilt is undeniable. Now you must spend the next 30 years in prison. We'll try to make this time as comfortable as possible so we'll provide you with sex dolls, safety, and other comforts. After 30 years, you can begin applying for parole every 2 years. If you show improvements in your character, we will release you. Can you please tell us where your victims are? We'll give you money."
Ridiculous. The tail wags the dog. It's ass backwards.
If we are not executing sadists like I feel we should... then food, water, showers, and a toilet. Let's not go too far such as we did with Clifford Olson and all the luxuries we felt necessary for him as he did his time.
We paid that guy cash so he could tell us where his victims laid. We placed him in isolation because, of course, the other prisoners would have none of his existence. I feel we should have placed him in general population. And I feel that if he was a bit more cooperative and offered the resting places of the children he raped and murdered without squeezing the people of British Columbia... then we could have looked at a safer place to spend the next 30 years. But no... the people so concerned with his rights would have none of that.
In hindsight, this statement could have been offered to Olson at the time of sentencing: "Clifford... you have raped, tortured and murdered several children. Your guilt is undeniable. Now you must spend the next 30 years in prison. We'll try to make this time as comfortable as possible so we'll provide you with sex dolls, safety, and other comforts. After 30 years, you can begin applying for parole every 2 years. If you show improvements in your character, we will release you. Can you please tell us where your victims are? We'll give you money."
Ridiculous. The tail wags the dog. It's ass backwards.
I honestly don't know if the "benefits" you post about are actual fact, or media-spawned over dramatics, but I agree with you. Basic rights.
But I don't agree with putting people like this in general population. What you have to remember is that putting an inmate in isolation is not just for their protection, but everyone's. If there is a risk that people will attack this guy, you are potentially putting the prison staff at risk. It's not just about the inmates.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
If we are not executing sadists like I feel we should... then food, water, showers, and a toilet. Let's not go too far such as we did with Clifford Olson and all the luxuries we felt necessary for him as he did his time.
We paid that guy cash so he could tell us where his victims laid. We placed him in isolation because, of course, the other prisoners would have none of his existence. I feel we should have placed him in general population. And I feel that if he was a bit more cooperative and offered the resting places of the children he raped and murdered without squeezing the people of British Columbia... then we could have looked at a safer place to spend the next 30 years. But no... the people so concerned with his rights would have none of that.
In hindsight, this statement could have been offered to Olson at the time of sentencing: "Clifford... you have raped, tortured and murdered several children. Your guilt is undeniable. Now you must spend the next 30 years in prison. We'll try to make this time as comfortable as possible so we'll provide you with sex dolls, safety, and other comforts. After 30 years, you can begin applying for parole every 2 years. If you show improvements in your character, we will release you. Can you please tell us where your victims are? We'll give you money."
Ridiculous. The tail wags the dog. It's ass backwards.
I honestly don't know if the "benefits" you post about are actual fact, or media-spawned over dramatics, but I agree with you. Basic rights.
But I don't agree with putting people like this in general population. What you have to remember is that putting an inmate in isolation is not just for their protection, but everyone's. If there is a risk that people will attack this guy, you are potentially putting the prison staff at risk. It's not just about the inmates.
The Beast of BC
Upon his death from natural causes... survivors rejoiced while lamenting the weak justice system (over 30 years after their loved ones were taken): "These are tears of happiness, because justice is done for the children," said an emotional Trudy Court, the sister of one of Olson's victims.
"Our justice system couldn't do it for them. But life has. He's gone now." Olson's victims were all between nine and 18 years old.
Method of operation: It was Christmas Day 1980 when the body of 12-year-old Christine Weller was found, strangled and stabbed. The young girl from Surrey, B.C., was the first of his 11 known victims. He reportedly lured them with the promise of a job, and then plied them with alcohol and drugs. He tortured them, sexually assaulted them, killed them and then dumped their bodies.
A suspect, but police were unable to really do anything given the lack of hard evidence: Olson became a suspect early in the police investigation. He had been a juvenile delinquent and had spent all but five years of his adult life in prison. His fellow inmates had tried to kill him. However, police later claimed they didn't have enough resources to keep tabs on him as he drove thousands of kilometres around B.C. in rental cars.
What a fantastic deal!: Olson's arrest on Aug. 12, 1981 ended the killing spree. Before he pleaded guilty in 1982, Olson struck a notorious cash-for-bodies deal with police. His wife received $100,000 after Olson led investigators to the bodies. The deal angered many of the victims' families, who felt Olson had profited from their tragic losses.
Prison became an alternative playground for Clifford to exercise his sinister and cold ways: Olson was sentenced to life in prison, but being behind bars didn't stop his ability to terrorize. That's how Gary Rosenfeldt, who died in 2009, once described what happened to his family. His 16-year-old stepson, Daryn Johnsrude, was Olson's third victim. In the spring of 1981, Johnsrude ran an errand for his mother, Sharon Rosenfeldt, to the corner store near his home in Coquitlam, B.C. His body was found a month later; the teen had been sexually assaulted.
After his stepson's death, the Rosenfeldts launched a group called Victims of Violence. A few years later, in 1986, Olson wrote a letter to Rosenfeldt describing Johnsrude's ordeal.
"He described in detail exactly what he did to our son," Rosenfeldt said. Olson also wrote book manuscripts, and was allowed to make a series of videotapes in prison. In them, he described what he did to his victims, including driving nails into their heads and asking them how it felt.
Our weak stomach for serving appropriate levels of justice is a failure: "We feel strongly that had justice worked in the manner it was supposed to work, 30 years ago, Clifford Olson would have been in jail serving time for other sex crimes that went unattended, that were stayed by the courts, and I feel that the justice system helped create the monster that he became and my son paid for this with his life," Sharon told the CBC's Mark Kelley in 2011.
Opportunities for parole. Let's get them mended and back in the public!: In August 1997, after serving 15 years of his sentence, Olson appeared in a Surrey courtroom asking for an early parole hearing. For four days, the court heard victim impact statements. The likelihood of Olson's release was slim — it took the jury 15 minutes to reject Olson's request for parole.
However, in those days, Olson had a right to apply for an early parole hearing under Sec. 745 of the Criminal Code, the so-called faint-hope clause. The clause dates back to 1976, when Parliament scrapped the death penalty and added a parole hearing for inmates that had served 15 years of a sentence. The clause was seen as an incentive for good behaviour, affording prisoners a parole hearing before they served 25 years, when a parole hearing is mandatory. The controversy surrounding Olson's request, and the anguish it caused for his victims families, sparked a campaign to have the clause erased.
Days after his 1997 parole hearing, the families and others opposed to the clause staged a demonstration in B.C. The law was eventually amended to exclude serial killers like Olson. And for other killers, such hearings were no longer automatic. A judge would screen the applications, and juries would have to be unanimous before a murderer's parole ineligibility period could be shortened.
Cliff disagreed with parole boards when they denied him: Convicted killers have the right to apply for a hearing after serving 25 years, so on July 18, 2006, Olson was again in front of a jury asking for parole. Three of the families came to the hearing in Montreal to present victim impact statements. However, the session was suspended before the jury made its decision. Before the break, Olson said he wasn't applying for parole and the board had no jurisdiction over him. "I will be staying in my cell," he said. "I won't be coming back to hear your retarded decision."
We'll try to make this time as comfortable as possible so we'll provide you with sex dolls, safety, and other comforts. After 30 years, you can begin applying for parole every 2 years. If you show improvements in your character, we will release you. Can you please tell us where your victims are? We'll give you money."
it is atrocious that he got cash for the location of the bodies. but where did you hear he got sex dolls in prison?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Upon his death from natural causes... survivors rejoiced while lamenting the weak justice system (over 30 years after their loved ones were taken): "These are tears of happiness, because justice is done for the children," said an emotional Trudy Court, the sister of one of Olson's victims.
"Our justice system couldn't do it for them. But life has. He's gone now." Olson's victims were all between nine and 18 years old.
Method of operation: It was Christmas Day 1980 when the body of 12-year-old Christine Weller was found, strangled and stabbed. The young girl from Surrey, B.C., was the first of his 11 known victims. He reportedly lured them with the promise of a job, and then plied them with alcohol and drugs. He tortured them, sexually assaulted them, killed them and then dumped their bodies.
A suspect, but police were unable to really do anything given the lack of hard evidence: Olson became a suspect early in the police investigation. He had been a juvenile delinquent and had spent all but five years of his adult life in prison. His fellow inmates had tried to kill him. However, police later claimed they didn't have enough resources to keep tabs on him as he drove thousands of kilometres around B.C. in rental cars.
What a fantastic deal!: Olson's arrest on Aug. 12, 1981 ended the killing spree. Before he pleaded guilty in 1982, Olson struck a notorious cash-for-bodies deal with police. His wife received $100,000 after Olson led investigators to the bodies. The deal angered many of the victims' families, who felt Olson had profited from their tragic losses.
Prison became an alternative playground for Clifford to exercise his sinister and cold ways: Olson was sentenced to life in prison, but being behind bars didn't stop his ability to terrorize. That's how Gary Rosenfeldt, who died in 2009, once described what happened to his family. His 16-year-old stepson, Daryn Johnsrude, was Olson's third victim. In the spring of 1981, Johnsrude ran an errand for his mother, Sharon Rosenfeldt, to the corner store near his home in Coquitlam, B.C. His body was found a month later; the teen had been sexually assaulted.
After his stepson's death, the Rosenfeldts launched a group called Victims of Violence. A few years later, in 1986, Olson wrote a letter to Rosenfeldt describing Johnsrude's ordeal.
"He described in detail exactly what he did to our son," Rosenfeldt said. Olson also wrote book manuscripts, and was allowed to make a series of videotapes in prison. In them, he described what he did to his victims, including driving nails into their heads and asking them how it felt.
Our weak stomach for serving appropriate levels of justice is a failure: "We feel strongly that had justice worked in the manner it was supposed to work, 30 years ago, Clifford Olson would have been in jail serving time for other sex crimes that went unattended, that were stayed by the courts, and I feel that the justice system helped create the monster that he became and my son paid for this with his life," Sharon told the CBC's Mark Kelley in 2011.
Opportunities for parole. Let's get them mended and back in the public!: In August 1997, after serving 15 years of his sentence, Olson appeared in a Surrey courtroom asking for an early parole hearing. For four days, the court heard victim impact statements. The likelihood of Olson's release was slim — it took the jury 15 minutes to reject Olson's request for parole.
However, in those days, Olson had a right to apply for an early parole hearing under Sec. 745 of the Criminal Code, the so-called faint-hope clause. The clause dates back to 1976, when Parliament scrapped the death penalty and added a parole hearing for inmates that had served 15 years of a sentence. The clause was seen as an incentive for good behaviour, affording prisoners a parole hearing before they served 25 years, when a parole hearing is mandatory. The controversy surrounding Olson's request, and the anguish it caused for his victims families, sparked a campaign to have the clause erased.
Days after his 1997 parole hearing, the families and others opposed to the clause staged a demonstration in B.C. The law was eventually amended to exclude serial killers like Olson. And for other killers, such hearings were no longer automatic. A judge would screen the applications, and juries would have to be unanimous before a murderer's parole ineligibility period could be shortened.
Cliff disagreed with parole boards when they denied him: Convicted killers have the right to apply for a hearing after serving 25 years, so on July 18, 2006, Olson was again in front of a jury asking for parole. Three of the families came to the hearing in Montreal to present victim impact statements. However, the session was suspended before the jury made its decision. Before the break, Olson said he wasn't applying for parole and the board had no jurisdiction over him. "I will be staying in my cell," he said. "I won't be coming back to hear your retarded decision."
We'll try to make this time as comfortable as possible so we'll provide you with sex dolls, safety, and other comforts. After 30 years, you can begin applying for parole every 2 years. If you show improvements in your character, we will release you. Can you please tell us where your victims are? We'll give you money."
it is atrocious that he got cash for the location of the bodies. but where did you hear he got sex dolls in prison?
I sourced it 20-40 pages ago.
He complained that the blow up dolls didn't satisfy him and he felt he deserved more 'life-like' ones.
Nope don't follow this either. The concept I understand ... Putting it into practice however .... No way can I compute
Lets take the bastard referred to above who chopped that mans head off in the street. When he chose to subject that young man to that fate, and subjected young children to seeing it he handed in his rights card
Yeah it's not as easy to have a rule on a case by case basis but I truely believe that man deserves nothing ... Absolutely nothing ....
and so who then gets to decide where the line is drawn on when someone's right and/or basic dignities are taken away? dependent on crime? upbringing/familial history? because that's exactly what would occur. and tell me, what purpose does it serve to do so? not everyone deserves the same sentence, but everyone deserves the same basic rights.
Key phrase: same basic rights.
If we are not executing sadists like I feel we should... then food, water, showers, and a toilet. Let's not go too far such as we did with Clifford Olson and all the luxuries we felt necessary for him as he did his time.
We paid that guy cash so he could tell us where his victims laid. We place's him in isolation because, of course, the other prisoners would have none of his existence. I feel we should have placed him in general population. And I feel that if he was a bit more cooperative and offered the resting places of the children he raped and murdered without squeezing the people of British Columbia... then we could have looked at a safer place to spend the next 30 years. But no... the people so concerned with his rights would have none of that.
In hindsight, this statement could have been offered to Olson at the time of sentencing: "Clifford... you have raped, tortured and murdered several children. Your guilt is undeniable. Now you must spend the next 30 years in prison. We'll try to make this time as comfortable as possible so we'll provide you with sex dolls, safety, and other comforts. After 30 years, you can begin applying for parole every 2 years. If you show improvements in your character, we will release you. Can you please tell us where your victims are? We'll give you money."
Ridiculous. The tail wags the dog. It's ass backwards.
Torturing people with isolation and neglect and boredom and physical hardship is the worst thing I can think of as a good way to keep prisoners from society. If prisoners - any of them - were treated the way you suggest we'd then have fucking completely unmanageable prisoners having massive mental breakdowns and lashing put violently, with corrections officers also going mental, since their jobs would entail treating people worse than dogs all the live long day, and doing so as the prisoners rapidly became more and more dangerous and unpredictable. Exactly how do you propose we find that many trustworthy sociopaths who would be okay with working in conditions like that and treating humans like that as a career??
It is in everyone's interests, for practical reasons and for the benefit of our souls, to keep dangerous violent criminals calm and cooperative. That counts for the general population too. I don't think that a public lynching committing by inmates lends to the best atmosphere for keeping control and possible rehabilitation. And there are also the family members of the prisoners to consider as well. I'm sure they would become a very troublesome bunch if inmates were all locked in a room with a toilet for their entire sentence, given food, and allowed to shower, and that's it. Driving inmates crazy just seems like a bad idea all around.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If we are not executing sadists like I feel we should... then food, water, showers, and a toilet. Let's not go too far such as we did with Clifford Olson and all the luxuries we felt necessary for him as he did his time.
We paid that guy cash so he could tell us where his victims laid. We place's him in isolation because, of course, the other prisoners would have none of his existence. I feel we should have placed him in general population. And I feel that if he was a bit more cooperative and offered the resting places of the children he raped and murdered without squeezing the people of British Columbia... then we could have looked at a safer place to spend the next 30 years. But no... the people so concerned with his rights would have none of that.
In hindsight, this statement could have been offered to Olson at the time of sentencing: "Clifford... you have raped, tortured and murdered several children. Your guilt is undeniable. Now you must spend the next 30 years in prison. We'll try to make this time as comfortable as possible so we'll provide you with sex dolls, safety, and other comforts. After 30 years, you can begin applying for parole every 2 years. If you show improvements in your character, we will release you. Can you please tell us where your victims are? We'll give you money."
Ridiculous. The tail wags the dog. It's ass backwards.
Torturing people with isolation and neglect and boredom and physical hardship is the worst thing I can think of as a good way to keep prisoners from society. If prisoners - any of them - were treated the way you suggest we'd then have fucking completely unmanageable prisoners having massive mental breakdowns and lashing put violently, with corrections officers also going mental, since their jobs would entail treating people worse than dogs all the live long day, and doing so as the prisoners rapidly became more and more dangerous and unpredictable. Exactly how do you propose we find that many trustworthy sociopaths who would be okay with working in conditions like that and treating humans like that as a career??
It is in everyone's interests, for practical reasons and for the benefit of our souls, to keep dangerous violent criminals calm and cooperative. That counts for the general population too. I don't think that a public lynching committing by inmates lends to the best atmosphere for keeping control and possible rehabilitation. And there are also the family members of the prisoners to consider as well. I'm sure they would become a very troublesome bunch if inmates were all locked in a room with a toilet for their entire sentence, given food, and allowed to shower, and that's it. Driving inmates crazy just seems like a bad idea all around.
I'm not sure what you are saying. Remember we are talking about maximum security prisons for our worst offenders here... and we were also talking about basic needs: food, water, showers and a toilet- enough for subsistence, but no more. Luxuries would be items that prisoners earn... not expect.
Are you telling me the above wouldn't suffice for their needs? Are you suggesting nice and tasty food with good variety (more than impoverished families can afford to eat on a daily basis)... and nice, warm, private showers (maybe even in their own cells)... and an American Standard power flush toilet would be much more appropriate? I must be missing what you have tried to say.
If criminals become hostile because they do not like bland food or the comfort of their mattress... then they can get beat down.
And... I have not said isolation for your typical, 'run-of-the-mill' prisoner. Olson needed isolation- but he should have received it after he told police where his victims laid... not after he was paid handsomely for doing so. As for neglect and boredom... are you saying we must make concerted efforts to entertain these people?
it seems nearly impossible to carry on in this debate as it becomes a convoluted mess with lots of twisting & turning words inside out & taking the meaning of a post & turning it into something completely different.
it seems nearly impossible to carry on in this debate as it becomes a convoluted mess with lots of twisting & turning words inside out & taking the meaning of a post & turning it into something completely different.
It happens every time. Then this thread gets silent for a while. Then something happens and it perks up again. Then the cycle continues.
I'm likely a contributor to what you describe. Truth be told... I'm running out of steam. I talked tough about 10 pages ago and said I was done arguing... but it's like the Godfather III movie: just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.
it seems nearly impossible to carry on in this debate as it becomes a convoluted mess with lots of twisting & turning words inside out & taking the meaning of a post & turning it into something completely different.
It happens every time. Then this thread gets silent for a while. Then something happens and it perks up again. Then the cycle continues.
I'm likely a contributor to what you describe. Truth be told... I'm running out of steam. I talked tough about 10 pages ago and said I was done arguing... but it's like the Godfather III movie: just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.
Have a good one!
you are not alone; i feel the same exact way. at least we are in the same boat, that is comforting to me.
As for neglect and boredom... are you saying we must make concerted efforts to entertain these people?
I think what he means is that being put in isolation is not a perk as it seems you have suggested it is. It usually makes a person lose their fucking mind. it's mental torture.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
As for neglect and boredom... are you saying we must make concerted efforts to entertain these people?
I think what he means is that being put in isolation is not a perk as it seems you have suggested it is. It usually makes a person lose their fucking mind. it's mental torture.
It's a pretty big perk if survival is a priority. It would be hard, but maybe it should be a little hard given the general obscenity of his offences.
What exactly do you want?
Maybe I haven't fully evolved yet... but sometimes I'm completely flabbergasted with the direction this thread takes. It's not enough that we spare the bastard's life... but we also have to concern ourselves with his comfort levels as well or else we are horrible human beings.
I'll say this... any one of those parents would serve the most horrific prison sentence imaginable if they could have their child back, but of course they can't. Compared to the pain that prick left for all those families and the pain he delivered to those young children in the final excruciating moments of their lives... he got off pretty damn easy in my mind.
It's a pretty big perk if survival is a priority. It would be hard, but maybe it should be a little hard given the general obscenity of his offences.
What exactly do you want?
Maybe I haven't fully evolved yet... but sometimes I'm completely flabbergasted with the direction this thread takes. It's not enough that we spare the bastard's life... but we also have to concern ourselves with his comfort levels as well or else we are horrible human beings.
I'll say this... any one of those parents would serve the most horrific prison sentence imaginable if they could have their child back, but of course they can't. Compared to the pain that prick left for all those families and the pain he delivered to those young children in the final excruciating moments of their lives... he got off pretty damn easy in my mind.
What is Solitary Confinement?
In the early nineteenth century, the U.S. led the world in a new practice of imprisoning people in solitary cells, without access to any human contact or stimulation, as a method of rehabilitation. The results were disastrous, as prisoners quickly became severely mentally disturbed. The practice was all but abandoned. Over a century later, it has made an unfortunate comeback. Instead of torturing prisoners with solitary confinement in dark and dirty underground holes, prisoners are now subjected to solitary confinement in well-lit, sterile boxes. The psychological repercussions are similar.
Today, tens of thousands of individuals across the country are detained inside cramped, concrete, windowless cells in a state of near-total solitude for between 22 and 24 hours a day. The cells have a toilet and a shower, and a slot in the door large enough for a guard to slip a food tray through. Prisoners in solitary confinement are frequently deprived of telephone calls and contact visits. “Recreation” involves being taken, often in handcuffs and shackles, to another solitary cell where prisoners can pace alone for an hour before being returned to their cell.
Ever since solitary confinement came into existence, it has been used as a tool of repression. While it is justified by corrections officials as necessary to protect prisoners and guards from violent superpredators, all too often it is imposed on individuals, particularly prisoners of color, who threaten prison administrations in an altogether different way. Consistently, jailhouse lawyers and jailhouse doctors, who administer to the needs of their fellow prisoners behind bars, are placed in solitary confinement. They are joined by political prisoners from various civil rights and independence movements.
CCR’s Challenges to Solitary Confinement
In May 2012, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit against the state of California for its use of prolonged solitary confinement in the infamous Pelican Bay prison. Ruiz, et al. v. Brown, Jr., et al., is a federal class action challenging prolonged solitary confinement and deprivation of due process, based on the rights guaranteed under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, at Pelican Bay. The case challenges inhumane, unconstitutional conditions under which thousands of prisoners live. Ruiz reasserts the importance of fundamental human rights and the Constitution’s guarantee that no one may be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and that all are entitled to the due process of law.
CCR’s case against solitary confinement at Pelican Bay is the latest in a long history of challenges to the use of isolation in prisons. In Wilkinson v. Austin, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in support of CCR’s claims that prison officials cannot confine prisoners in long-term solitary confinement in a
super maximum prison without first giving them the opportunity to challenge their placement. CCR has engaged in solidarity efforts alongside hunger striking prisoners, as well as engaged in advocacy and education efforts around the impact of the use of isolation in prisons.
Solitary Confinement is Torture
The devastating psychological and physical effects of prolonged solitary confinement are well documented by social scientists: prolonged solitary confinement causes prisoners significant mental harm and places them at grave risk of even more devastating future psychological harm.
Researchers have demonstrated that prolonged solitary confinement causes a persistent and heightened state of anxiety and nervousness, headaches, insomnia, lethargy or chronic tiredness, nightmares, heart palpitations, and fear of impending nervous breakdowns. Other documented effects include obsessive ruminations, confused thought processes, an oversensitivity to
stimuli, irrational anger, social withdrawal, hallucinations, violent fantasies, emotional flatness, mood swings, chronic depression, feelings of overall deterioration, as well as suicidal ideation.
Exposure to such life-shattering conditions clearly constitutes cruel and unusual punishment – in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, the brutal use of solitary has been condemned as torture by the international community.
A Growing Human Rights Movement against the Use of Solitary Confinement
Across the United States and the world, there is an emerging movement calling for the end of solitary confinement.
In the U.S., prisoner-led movements have attracted media attention and public scrutiny to harsh conditions of confinement, including overcrowding, the use of isolation, deplorable health conditions, substandard medical care, and the discriminatory and careless treatment of people with mental illnesses. Several prisoner-led hunger strikes have drawn attention to these harsh
conditions, including efforts in Georgia, Ohio and California. Advocates have joined in solidarity and alongside prisoners to protest the use of solitary confinement.
International human rights experts and bodies have also condemned indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement, recommended that the practice be abolished entirely and argued that solitary confinement is a human rights abuse that can amount to torture. In August 2011, Juan Mendez, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, concluded that even 15 days in solitary confinement constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and 15 days is the limit after which irreversible harmful psychological effects can occur. However, many prisoners in the United States have been isolated for far longer.
Solitary Confinement at the Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit
Opened on December 1, 1989, Pelican Bay State Prison is the most restrictive prison in California and one of the harshest “super-maximum” prisons in the country. The prison was specifically designed to foster maximum isolation. It is one of four Security Housing Units (SHU) operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
More than 500 of Pelican Bay’s SHU prisoners have been held in solitary confinement in the SHU for over 10 years. Over 78 prisoners have languished in solitary for more than 20 years. Prisoners are detained inside windowless cells, are not allowed to call home and are served substandard or rotten food.
Prisoners are frequently assigned to the SHU without any significant disciplinary record; instead they are designated for indefinite solitary confinement based on their alleged gang affiliation. They can be labeled “gang members” for waiving hello to another prisoner who has already been so-designated, or for possession of artwork, or their tattoos.
The only real way out of the SHU is to “debrief,” to inform on other prisoners, thus condemning other prisoners to the same torture, and risking retaliation. Review of the continued need for SHU confinement is limited to every six years, and these reviews are little more than rubber stamps for prisoners who refuse, or are unable, to debrief.
The California Hunger Strikes
In 2011, prisoners across California organized two hunger strikes in protest of inhuman and degrading conditions of confinement and outlined five core demands: (1) end group punishment; (2) abolish the use of debriefing; (3) end long-term solitary confinement and alleviate conditions in segregation, including the provision of regular and meaningful social contact, adequate healthcare and access to sunlight; (4) provide adequate food; and (5) expand programming and privileges.
Though the CDCR convinced the prisoners to suspend the strike by promising change, the CDCR has responded instead by punishing the hunger strike leaders with prison discipline and other retaliation, and stonewalling any real efforts at reform.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
As for neglect and boredom... are you saying we must make concerted efforts to entertain these people?
I think what he means is that being put in isolation is not a perk as it seems you have suggested it is. It usually makes a person lose their fucking mind. it's mental torture.
I have to say, I'm am dead against, pun absolutely intended, the death penalty. Bernzie, in my opinion is spot on, it is state sanctioned murder, which for anyone calling themselves Christian should be in direct contravention of their beliefs.
I have a family member who was abducted, raped repeatedly, beaten to within an inch of her life and shot 3 times in her head. He was caught weeks after, tried and convicted. He is currently serving time in a Canadian prison, and I have to say, that is enough for me. Death would have been too good for this guy.
The thought that he would not spend another day in freedom does satisfy me, and should there be a time that he gets out, well I'll cross that bridge if and when it gets to it.
I can't speak to other victims of crime, but this one believes that the system has worked and that the piece of shit spends time wondering what his life would have been like had he made better choices. I'm not religious at all, no heaven or hell, but only in the fact that we only have on go at this life and his is truly fucked.
My family and I have had to live with this tragedy, and we're split now around the globe, this event really took its toll. No choice but to find a life after it all, but that's what it's all about, finding something among the mess, not taking something that in the long run will make little, if any difference.
It's a pretty big perk if survival is a priority. It would be hard, but maybe it should be a little hard given the general obscenity of his offences.
What exactly do you want?
Maybe I haven't fully evolved yet... but sometimes I'm completely flabbergasted with the direction this thread takes. It's not enough that we spare the bastard's life... but we also have to concern ourselves with his comfort levels as well or else we are horrible human beings.
I'll say this... any one of those parents would serve the most horrific prison sentence imaginable if they could have their child back, but of course they can't. Compared to the pain that prick left for all those families and the pain he delivered to those young children in the final excruciating moments of their lives... he got off pretty damn easy in my mind.
What is Solitary Confinement?
In the early nineteenth century, the U.S. led the world in a new practice of imprisoning people in solitary cells, without access to any human contact or stimulation, as a method of rehabilitation. The results were disastrous, as prisoners quickly became severely mentally disturbed. The practice was all but abandoned. Over a century later, it has made an unfortunate comeback. Instead of torturing prisoners with solitary confinement in dark and dirty underground holes, prisoners are now subjected to solitary confinement in well-lit, sterile boxes. The psychological repercussions are similar.
Today, tens of thousands of individuals across the country are detained inside cramped, concrete, windowless cells in a state of near-total solitude for between 22 and 24 hours a day. The cells have a toilet and a shower, and a slot in the door large enough for a guard to slip a food tray through. Prisoners in solitary confinement are frequently deprived of telephone calls and contact visits. “Recreation” involves being taken, often in handcuffs and shackles, to another solitary cell where prisoners can pace alone for an hour before being returned to their cell.
Ever since solitary confinement came into existence, it has been used as a tool of repression. While it is justified by corrections officials as necessary to protect prisoners and guards from violent superpredators, all too often it is imposed on individuals, particularly prisoners of color, who threaten prison administrations in an altogether different way. Consistently, jailhouse lawyers and jailhouse doctors, who administer to the needs of their fellow prisoners behind bars, are placed in solitary confinement. They are joined by political prisoners from various civil rights and independence movements.
CCR’s Challenges to Solitary Confinement
In May 2012, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit against the state of California for its use of prolonged solitary confinement in the infamous Pelican Bay prison. Ruiz, et al. v. Brown, Jr., et al., is a federal class action challenging prolonged solitary confinement and deprivation of due process, based on the rights guaranteed under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, at Pelican Bay. The case challenges inhumane, unconstitutional conditions under which thousands of prisoners live. Ruiz reasserts the importance of fundamental human rights and the Constitution’s guarantee that no one may be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and that all are entitled to the due process of law.
CCR’s case against solitary confinement at Pelican Bay is the latest in a long history of challenges to the use of isolation in prisons. In Wilkinson v. Austin, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in support of CCR’s claims that prison officials cannot confine prisoners in long-term solitary confinement in a
super maximum prison without first giving them the opportunity to challenge their placement. CCR has engaged in solidarity efforts alongside hunger striking prisoners, as well as engaged in advocacy and education efforts around the impact of the use of isolation in prisons.
Solitary Confinement is Torture
The devastating psychological and physical effects of prolonged solitary confinement are well documented by social scientists: prolonged solitary confinement causes prisoners significant mental harm and places them at grave risk of even more devastating future psychological harm.
Researchers have demonstrated that prolonged solitary confinement causes a persistent and heightened state of anxiety and nervousness, headaches, insomnia, lethargy or chronic tiredness, nightmares, heart palpitations, and fear of impending nervous breakdowns. Other documented effects include obsessive ruminations, confused thought processes, an oversensitivity to
stimuli, irrational anger, social withdrawal, hallucinations, violent fantasies, emotional flatness, mood swings, chronic depression, feelings of overall deterioration, as well as suicidal ideation.
Exposure to such life-shattering conditions clearly constitutes cruel and unusual punishment – in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, the brutal use of solitary has been condemned as torture by the international community.
A Growing Human Rights Movement against the Use of Solitary Confinement
Across the United States and the world, there is an emerging movement calling for the end of solitary confinement.
In the U.S., prisoner-led movements have attracted media attention and public scrutiny to harsh conditions of confinement, including overcrowding, the use of isolation, deplorable health conditions, substandard medical care, and the discriminatory and careless treatment of people with mental illnesses. Several prisoner-led hunger strikes have drawn attention to these harsh
conditions, including efforts in Georgia, Ohio and California. Advocates have joined in solidarity and alongside prisoners to protest the use of solitary confinement.
International human rights experts and bodies have also condemned indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement, recommended that the practice be abolished entirely and argued that solitary confinement is a human rights abuse that can amount to torture. In August 2011, Juan Mendez, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, concluded that even 15 days in solitary confinement constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and 15 days is the limit after which irreversible harmful psychological effects can occur. However, many prisoners in the United States have been isolated for far longer.
Solitary Confinement at the Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit
Opened on December 1, 1989, Pelican Bay State Prison is the most restrictive prison in California and one of the harshest “super-maximum” prisons in the country. The prison was specifically designed to foster maximum isolation. It is one of four Security Housing Units (SHU) operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
More than 500 of Pelican Bay’s SHU prisoners have been held in solitary confinement in the SHU for over 10 years. Over 78 prisoners have languished in solitary for more than 20 years. Prisoners are detained inside windowless cells, are not allowed to call home and are served substandard or rotten food.
Prisoners are frequently assigned to the SHU without any significant disciplinary record; instead they are designated for indefinite solitary confinement based on their alleged gang affiliation. They can be labeled “gang members” for waiving hello to another prisoner who has already been so-designated, or for possession of artwork, or their tattoos.
The only real way out of the SHU is to “debrief,” to inform on other prisoners, thus condemning other prisoners to the same torture, and risking retaliation. Review of the continued need for SHU confinement is limited to every six years, and these reviews are little more than rubber stamps for prisoners who refuse, or are unable, to debrief.
The California Hunger Strikes
In 2011, prisoners across California organized two hunger strikes in protest of inhuman and degrading conditions of confinement and outlined five core demands: (1) end group punishment; (2) abolish the use of debriefing; (3) end long-term solitary confinement and alleviate conditions in segregation, including the provision of regular and meaningful social contact, adequate healthcare and access to sunlight; (4) provide adequate food; and (5) expand programming and privileges.
Though the CDCR convinced the prisoners to suspend the strike by promising change, the CDCR has responded instead by punishing the hunger strike leaders with prison discipline and other retaliation, and stonewalling any real efforts at reform.
I have to say, I'm am dead against, pun absolutely intended, the death penalty. Bernzie, in my opinion is spot on, it is state sanctioned murder, which for anyone calling themselves Christian should be in direct contravention of their beliefs.
I have a family member who was abducted, raped repeatedly, beaten to within an inch of her life and shot 3 times in her head. He was caught weeks after, tried and convicted. He is currently serving time in a Canadian prison, and I have to say, that is enough for me. Death would have been too good for this guy.
The thought that he would not spend another day in freedom does satisfy me, and should there be a time that he gets out, well I'll cross that bridge if and when it gets to it.
I can't speak to other victims of crime, but this one believes that the system has worked and that the piece of shit spends time wondering what his life would have been like had he made better choices. I'm not religious at all, no heaven or hell, but only in the fact that we only have on go at this life and his is truly fucked.
My family and I have had to live with this tragedy, and we're split now around the globe, this event really took its toll. No choice but to find a life after it all, but that's what it's all about, finding something among the mess, not taking something that in the long run will make little, if any difference.
My opinion and my two cents, for what it's worth.
First... and most important... I'm sorry for your ordeal.
Second... I'm glad that the current measures have worked for you as you try to make resolve the violence in your life. I agree that prison would not be the way I would want to spend my 'one kick at this can'.
Third... in the event of a murder... not all can get peace in the manner you have been able to get. They seek more. It doesn't mean they are right, but it doesn't mean they are wrong. And, ultimately, that is what this thread has been about: expressing the viewpoints from opposing perspectives.
depending on the homicide case, life in prison. no parole. prison till death. that's the least that society requires for the safety of its citizens so that's what should be done. 25 years is bullshit.
first degree or not. murder is murder. if you kill someone, you are in prison for good.
I think solitary is sometimes required for the safety of everyone concerned, but I have admitted several times I don't have all the answers. How do you best keep everyone safe in a "city" of maniacs? good question, and probably unanswerable.
All I'm saying is that I don't "wish" solitary on anyone. but sometimes it is the only answer.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
depending on the homicide case, life in prison. no parole. prison till death. that's the least that society requires for the safety of its citizens so that's what should be done. 25 years is bullshit.
first degree or not. murder is murder. if you kill someone, you are in prison for good.
I think solitary is sometimes required for the safety of everyone concerned, but I have admitted several times I don't have all the answers. How do you best keep everyone safe in a "city" of maniacs? good question, and probably unanswerable.
All I'm saying is that I don't "wish" solitary on anyone. but sometimes it is the only answer.
You have made a vague reference depending on the homicide case. Are you speaking of circumstances?
For example... do you think Olson's random murders of children are the same as that of, for example, an enraged father's murder of a man who has raped his daughter (such as the case we observed in Texas about a year ago)?
In other words... does the nature of the crime have any bearing at all? Is the father the same as Olson? If not... would they serve the same sentence regardless of the 'difference' between the two?
You have made a vague reference depending on the homicide case. Are you speaking of circumstances?
For example... do you think Olson's random murders of children are the same as that of, for example, an enraged father's murder of a man who has raped his daughter (such as the case we observed in Texas about a year ago)?
In other words... does the nature of the crime have any bearing at all? Is the father the same as Olson? If not... would they serve the same sentence regardless of the 'difference' between the two?
depending if it's murder or manslaughter. that's all I meant.
that comparison is tricky, but legally speaking, murder is murder. yes, yes, flame me all you want about it, but if you kill with intent, you serve life. I don't remember the details of the father's case, if he caught the guy in the act, or if it was after the fact, so if it was the former, that makes things different (could be argued he was defending his daughter). But the latter? that's just flat out revenge, and yes, in any case, that warrants life.
would I have done the same as the father? probably. but that doesn't make it right.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Why is it that so many seem to agree that solitary confinement is worse than death? and so many seem content with that ... yet many argue that capital punishment is unjust and in some cases an easy way out. So if this is your line of thinking that solitary is torture then you might be out to see a person suffer, more than anything ... yes/no?
I myself ... solitary should be discontinued ... everyone in general ... no matter the crime. Certain individuals absolutely deserve capital punishment ... those that shall be in the front of the line are those that video tape themselves humiliating their victims.
You have made a vague reference depending on the homicide case. Are you speaking of circumstances?
For example... do you think Olson's random murders of children are the same as that of, for example, an enraged father's murder of a man who has raped his daughter (such as the case we observed in Texas about a year ago)?
In other words... does the nature of the crime have any bearing at all? Is the father the same as Olson? If not... would they serve the same sentence regardless of the 'difference' between the two?
depending if it's murder or manslaughter. that's all I meant.
that comparison is tricky, but legally speaking, murder is murder. yes, yes, flame me all you want about it, but if you kill with intent, you serve life. I don't remember the details of the father's case, if he caught the guy in the act, or if it was after the fact, so if it was the former, that makes things different (could be argued he was defending his daughter). But the latter? that's just flat out revenge, and yes, in any case, that warrants life.
would I have done the same as the father? probably. but that doesn't make it right.
Caught in the act. Beat him to death. No charges brought against him- it was argued that it was self defence.
Summarizing your 'legal' position that circumstances have no bearing... Olson's murders are no different than the enraged father acting after the fact. If this is so... is it your moral position as well?
Comments
Woahhhh
Nope don't follow this either. The concept I understand ... Putting it into practice however .... No way can I compute
Lets take the bastard referred to above who chopped that mans head off in the street. When he chose to subject that young man to that fate, and subjected young children to seeing it he handed in his rights card
Yeah it's not as easy to have a rule on a case by case basis but I truely believe that man deserves nothing ... Absolutely nothing ....
because if you allow one person who belongs to a certain group to be stripped of their rights, any group, then it's a slippery slope to let it happen to another group....then another.....then another......
I've mentioned this example several times, but here it is again: Saddam Hussein was a monster of a human being. The way he was put to death was a dark moment for all democracy. A man who committed such heinous acts against the human race should have been treated the OPPOSITE, not the same. The cycle of violence and hatred begets itself. Nothing was accomplished that day but blood lust.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
and so who then gets to decide where the line is drawn on when someone's right and/or basic dignities are taken away? dependent on crime? upbringing/familial history? because that's exactly what would occur. and tell me, what purpose does it serve to do so? not everyone deserves the same sentence, but everyone deserves the same basic rights.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Fair enough. Apologies for coming off a bit over-angsty. And the 'idiot' thing was an honest mistake. i wouldn't call you that. You're a good egg.
I completely understand you are right on this, I knew this response was coming before I posted, and I knew full well this is the response demanded of any democratic system, but when adding my own personal feelings into a crime of this nature it is not always so easy to be as objectively rational.
again you are right, no question, and there can be no argument against what you say.
But with a crime of that nature, it is very difficult to remain so level headed. Perhaps I let my emotions overtake momentarily.
That mans actions were so evil, so so evil......if we are to believe the media he has not conformed to prison life, has been objectional, obtuse, and downright uncooperative, and has had to be physically restrained......and now he wants to sue. Basic rights are fine, but this man is taking the piss. But again Im not arguing with you, he has to have the right to do that, otherwise serious problems follow. Its still not hard to swallow.
somewhere in London, there a two year old boy who probably still has no idea his Daddy will never come home and cuddle him again.....he probably watches the door sometimes expecting him to wander him......
Thanks.
Key phrase: same basic rights.
If we are not executing sadists like I feel we should... then food, water, showers, and a toilet. Let's not go too far such as we did with Clifford Olson and all the luxuries we felt necessary for him as he did his time.
We paid that guy cash so he could tell us where his victims laid. We placed him in isolation because, of course, the other prisoners would have none of his existence. I feel we should have placed him in general population. And I feel that if he was a bit more cooperative and offered the resting places of the children he raped and murdered without squeezing the people of British Columbia... then we could have looked at a safer place to spend the next 30 years. But no... the people so concerned with his rights would have none of that.
In hindsight, this statement could have been offered to Olson at the time of sentencing: "Clifford... you have raped, tortured and murdered several children. Your guilt is undeniable. Now you must spend the next 30 years in prison. We'll try to make this time as comfortable as possible so we'll provide you with sex dolls, safety, and other comforts. After 30 years, you can begin applying for parole every 2 years. If you show improvements in your character, we will release you. Can you please tell us where your victims are? We'll give you money."
Ridiculous. The tail wags the dog. It's ass backwards.
I honestly don't know if the "benefits" you post about are actual fact, or media-spawned over dramatics, but I agree with you. Basic rights.
But I don't agree with putting people like this in general population. What you have to remember is that putting an inmate in isolation is not just for their protection, but everyone's. If there is a risk that people will attack this guy, you are potentially putting the prison staff at risk. It's not just about the inmates.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The Beast of BC
Upon his death from natural causes... survivors rejoiced while lamenting the weak justice system (over 30 years after their loved ones were taken):
"These are tears of happiness, because justice is done for the children," said an emotional Trudy Court, the sister of one of Olson's victims.
"Our justice system couldn't do it for them. But life has. He's gone now." Olson's victims were all between nine and 18 years old.
Method of operation:
It was Christmas Day 1980 when the body of 12-year-old Christine Weller was found, strangled and stabbed. The young girl from Surrey, B.C., was the first of his 11 known victims. He reportedly lured them with the promise of a job, and then plied them with alcohol and drugs. He tortured them, sexually assaulted them, killed them and then dumped their bodies.
A suspect, but police were unable to really do anything given the lack of hard evidence:
Olson became a suspect early in the police investigation. He had been a juvenile delinquent and had spent all but five years of his adult life in prison. His fellow inmates had tried to kill him. However, police later claimed they didn't have enough resources to keep tabs on him as he drove thousands of kilometres around B.C. in rental cars.
What a fantastic deal!:
Olson's arrest on Aug. 12, 1981 ended the killing spree. Before he pleaded guilty in 1982, Olson struck a notorious cash-for-bodies deal with police. His wife received $100,000 after Olson led investigators to the bodies. The deal angered many of the victims' families, who felt Olson had profited from their tragic losses.
Prison became an alternative playground for Clifford to exercise his sinister and cold ways:
Olson was sentenced to life in prison, but being behind bars didn't stop his ability to terrorize. That's how Gary Rosenfeldt, who died in 2009, once described what happened to his family. His 16-year-old stepson, Daryn Johnsrude, was Olson's third victim. In the spring of 1981, Johnsrude ran an errand for his mother, Sharon Rosenfeldt, to the corner store near his home in Coquitlam, B.C. His body was found a month later; the teen had been sexually assaulted.
After his stepson's death, the Rosenfeldts launched a group called Victims of Violence. A few years later, in 1986, Olson wrote a letter to Rosenfeldt describing Johnsrude's ordeal.
"He described in detail exactly what he did to our son," Rosenfeldt said. Olson also wrote book manuscripts, and was allowed to make a series of videotapes in prison. In them, he described what he did to his victims, including driving nails into their heads and asking them how it felt.
Our weak stomach for serving appropriate levels of justice is a failure:
"We feel strongly that had justice worked in the manner it was supposed to work, 30 years ago, Clifford Olson would have been in jail serving time for other sex crimes that went unattended, that were stayed by the courts, and I feel that the justice system helped create the monster that he became and my son paid for this with his life," Sharon told the CBC's Mark Kelley in 2011.
Opportunities for parole. Let's get them mended and back in the public!:
In August 1997, after serving 15 years of his sentence, Olson appeared in a Surrey courtroom asking for an early parole hearing. For four days, the court heard victim impact statements. The likelihood of Olson's release was slim — it took the jury 15 minutes to reject Olson's request for parole.
However, in those days, Olson had a right to apply for an early parole hearing under Sec. 745 of the Criminal Code, the so-called faint-hope clause. The clause dates back to 1976, when Parliament scrapped the death penalty and added a parole hearing for inmates that had served 15 years of a sentence. The clause was seen as an incentive for good behaviour, affording prisoners a parole hearing before they served 25 years, when a parole hearing is mandatory. The controversy surrounding Olson's request, and the anguish it caused for his victims families, sparked a campaign to have the clause erased.
Days after his 1997 parole hearing, the families and others opposed to the clause staged a demonstration in B.C. The law was eventually amended to exclude serial killers like Olson. And for other killers, such hearings were no longer automatic. A judge would screen the applications, and juries would have to be unanimous before a murderer's parole ineligibility period could be shortened.
Cliff disagreed with parole boards when they denied him:
Convicted killers have the right to apply for a hearing after serving 25 years, so on July 18, 2006, Olson was again in front of a jury asking for parole. Three of the families came to the hearing in Montreal to present victim impact statements. However, the session was suspended before the jury made its decision. Before the break, Olson said he wasn't applying for parole and the board had no jurisdiction over him. "I will be staying in my cell," he said. "I won't be coming back to hear your retarded decision."
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... death.html
it is atrocious that he got cash for the location of the bodies. but where did you hear he got sex dolls in prison?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
what a wonderful guy.
canada should have put a bullet through his nasty brain a long ass time ago. this freak-show makes me sick
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I sourced it 20-40 pages ago.
He complained that the blow up dolls didn't satisfy him and he felt he deserved more 'life-like' ones.
It is in everyone's interests, for practical reasons and for the benefit of our souls, to keep dangerous violent criminals calm and cooperative. That counts for the general population too. I don't think that a public lynching committing by inmates lends to the best atmosphere for keeping control and possible rehabilitation. And there are also the family members of the prisoners to consider as well. I'm sure they would become a very troublesome bunch if inmates were all locked in a room with a toilet for their entire sentence, given food, and allowed to shower, and that's it. Driving inmates crazy just seems like a bad idea all around.
I'm not sure what you are saying. Remember we are talking about maximum security prisons for our worst offenders here... and we were also talking about basic needs: food, water, showers and a toilet- enough for subsistence, but no more. Luxuries would be items that prisoners earn... not expect.
Are you telling me the above wouldn't suffice for their needs? Are you suggesting nice and tasty food with good variety (more than impoverished families can afford to eat on a daily basis)... and nice, warm, private showers (maybe even in their own cells)... and an American Standard power flush toilet would be much more appropriate? I must be missing what you have tried to say.
If criminals become hostile because they do not like bland food or the comfort of their mattress... then they can get beat down.
And... I have not said isolation for your typical, 'run-of-the-mill' prisoner. Olson needed isolation- but he should have received it after he told police where his victims laid... not after he was paid handsomely for doing so. As for neglect and boredom... are you saying we must make concerted efforts to entertain these people?
it seems nearly impossible to carry on in this debate as it becomes a convoluted mess with lots of twisting & turning words inside out & taking the meaning of a post & turning it into something completely different.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
It happens every time. Then this thread gets silent for a while. Then something happens and it perks up again. Then the cycle continues.
I'm likely a contributor to what you describe. Truth be told... I'm running out of steam. I talked tough about 10 pages ago and said I was done arguing... but it's like the Godfather III movie: just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.
Have a good one!
you are not alone; i feel the same exact way. at least we are in the same boat, that is comforting to me.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I think what he means is that being put in isolation is not a perk as it seems you have suggested it is. It usually makes a person lose their fucking mind. it's mental torture.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It's a pretty big perk if survival is a priority. It would be hard, but maybe it should be a little hard given the general obscenity of his offences.
What exactly do you want?
Maybe I haven't fully evolved yet... but sometimes I'm completely flabbergasted with the direction this thread takes. It's not enough that we spare the bastard's life... but we also have to concern ourselves with his comfort levels as well or else we are horrible human beings.
I'll say this... any one of those parents would serve the most horrific prison sentence imaginable if they could have their child back, but of course they can't. Compared to the pain that prick left for all those families and the pain he delivered to those young children in the final excruciating moments of their lives... he got off pretty damn easy in my mind.
it's not exactly "a little hard".
http://ccrjustice.org/solitary-factsheet
What is Solitary Confinement?
In the early nineteenth century, the U.S. led the world in a new practice of imprisoning people in solitary cells, without access to any human contact or stimulation, as a method of rehabilitation. The results were disastrous, as prisoners quickly became severely mentally disturbed. The practice was all but abandoned. Over a century later, it has made an unfortunate comeback. Instead of torturing prisoners with solitary confinement in dark and dirty underground holes, prisoners are now subjected to solitary confinement in well-lit, sterile boxes. The psychological repercussions are similar.
Today, tens of thousands of individuals across the country are detained inside cramped, concrete, windowless cells in a state of near-total solitude for between 22 and 24 hours a day. The cells have a toilet and a shower, and a slot in the door large enough for a guard to slip a food tray through. Prisoners in solitary confinement are frequently deprived of telephone calls and contact visits. “Recreation” involves being taken, often in handcuffs and shackles, to another solitary cell where prisoners can pace alone for an hour before being returned to their cell.
Ever since solitary confinement came into existence, it has been used as a tool of repression. While it is justified by corrections officials as necessary to protect prisoners and guards from violent superpredators, all too often it is imposed on individuals, particularly prisoners of color, who threaten prison administrations in an altogether different way. Consistently, jailhouse lawyers and jailhouse doctors, who administer to the needs of their fellow prisoners behind bars, are placed in solitary confinement. They are joined by political prisoners from various civil rights and independence movements.
CCR’s Challenges to Solitary Confinement
In May 2012, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit against the state of California for its use of prolonged solitary confinement in the infamous Pelican Bay prison. Ruiz, et al. v. Brown, Jr., et al., is a federal class action challenging prolonged solitary confinement and deprivation of due process, based on the rights guaranteed under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, at Pelican Bay. The case challenges inhumane, unconstitutional conditions under which thousands of prisoners live. Ruiz reasserts the importance of fundamental human rights and the Constitution’s guarantee that no one may be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and that all are entitled to the due process of law.
CCR’s case against solitary confinement at Pelican Bay is the latest in a long history of challenges to the use of isolation in prisons. In Wilkinson v. Austin, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in support of CCR’s claims that prison officials cannot confine prisoners in long-term solitary confinement in a
super maximum prison without first giving them the opportunity to challenge their placement. CCR has engaged in solidarity efforts alongside hunger striking prisoners, as well as engaged in advocacy and education efforts around the impact of the use of isolation in prisons.
Solitary Confinement is Torture
The devastating psychological and physical effects of prolonged solitary confinement are well documented by social scientists: prolonged solitary confinement causes prisoners significant mental harm and places them at grave risk of even more devastating future psychological harm.
Researchers have demonstrated that prolonged solitary confinement causes a persistent and heightened state of anxiety and nervousness, headaches, insomnia, lethargy or chronic tiredness, nightmares, heart palpitations, and fear of impending nervous breakdowns. Other documented effects include obsessive ruminations, confused thought processes, an oversensitivity to
stimuli, irrational anger, social withdrawal, hallucinations, violent fantasies, emotional flatness, mood swings, chronic depression, feelings of overall deterioration, as well as suicidal ideation.
Exposure to such life-shattering conditions clearly constitutes cruel and unusual punishment – in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, the brutal use of solitary has been condemned as torture by the international community.
A Growing Human Rights Movement against the Use of Solitary Confinement
Across the United States and the world, there is an emerging movement calling for the end of solitary confinement.
In the U.S., prisoner-led movements have attracted media attention and public scrutiny to harsh conditions of confinement, including overcrowding, the use of isolation, deplorable health conditions, substandard medical care, and the discriminatory and careless treatment of people with mental illnesses. Several prisoner-led hunger strikes have drawn attention to these harsh
conditions, including efforts in Georgia, Ohio and California. Advocates have joined in solidarity and alongside prisoners to protest the use of solitary confinement.
International human rights experts and bodies have also condemned indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement, recommended that the practice be abolished entirely and argued that solitary confinement is a human rights abuse that can amount to torture. In August 2011, Juan Mendez, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, concluded that even 15 days in solitary confinement constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and 15 days is the limit after which irreversible harmful psychological effects can occur. However, many prisoners in the United States have been isolated for far longer.
Solitary Confinement at the Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit
Opened on December 1, 1989, Pelican Bay State Prison is the most restrictive prison in California and one of the harshest “super-maximum” prisons in the country. The prison was specifically designed to foster maximum isolation. It is one of four Security Housing Units (SHU) operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
More than 500 of Pelican Bay’s SHU prisoners have been held in solitary confinement in the SHU for over 10 years. Over 78 prisoners have languished in solitary for more than 20 years. Prisoners are detained inside windowless cells, are not allowed to call home and are served substandard or rotten food.
Prisoners are frequently assigned to the SHU without any significant disciplinary record; instead they are designated for indefinite solitary confinement based on their alleged gang affiliation. They can be labeled “gang members” for waiving hello to another prisoner who has already been so-designated, or for possession of artwork, or their tattoos.
The only real way out of the SHU is to “debrief,” to inform on other prisoners, thus condemning other prisoners to the same torture, and risking retaliation. Review of the continued need for SHU confinement is limited to every six years, and these reviews are little more than rubber stamps for prisoners who refuse, or are unable, to debrief.
The California Hunger Strikes
In 2011, prisoners across California organized two hunger strikes in protest of inhuman and degrading conditions of confinement and outlined five core demands: (1) end group punishment; (2) abolish the use of debriefing; (3) end long-term solitary confinement and alleviate conditions in segregation, including the provision of regular and meaningful social contact, adequate healthcare and access to sunlight; (4) provide adequate food; and (5) expand programming and privileges.
Though the CDCR convinced the prisoners to suspend the strike by promising change, the CDCR has responded instead by punishing the hunger strike leaders with prison discipline and other retaliation, and stonewalling any real efforts at reform.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I have to say, I'm am dead against, pun absolutely intended, the death penalty. Bernzie, in my opinion is spot on, it is state sanctioned murder, which for anyone calling themselves Christian should be in direct contravention of their beliefs.
I have a family member who was abducted, raped repeatedly, beaten to within an inch of her life and shot 3 times in her head. He was caught weeks after, tried and convicted. He is currently serving time in a Canadian prison, and I have to say, that is enough for me. Death would have been too good for this guy.
The thought that he would not spend another day in freedom does satisfy me, and should there be a time that he gets out, well I'll cross that bridge if and when it gets to it.
I can't speak to other victims of crime, but this one believes that the system has worked and that the piece of shit spends time wondering what his life would have been like had he made better choices. I'm not religious at all, no heaven or hell, but only in the fact that we only have on go at this life and his is truly fucked.
My family and I have had to live with this tragedy, and we're split now around the globe, this event really took its toll. No choice but to find a life after it all, but that's what it's all about, finding something among the mess, not taking something that in the long run will make little, if any difference.
My opinion and my two cents, for what it's worth.
So what do you want then?
First... and most important... I'm sorry for your ordeal.
Second... I'm glad that the current measures have worked for you as you try to make resolve the violence in your life. I agree that prison would not be the way I would want to spend my 'one kick at this can'.
Third... in the event of a murder... not all can get peace in the manner you have been able to get. They seek more. It doesn't mean they are right, but it doesn't mean they are wrong. And, ultimately, that is what this thread has been about: expressing the viewpoints from opposing perspectives.
depending on the homicide case, life in prison. no parole. prison till death. that's the least that society requires for the safety of its citizens so that's what should be done. 25 years is bullshit.
first degree or not. murder is murder. if you kill someone, you are in prison for good.
I think solitary is sometimes required for the safety of everyone concerned, but I have admitted several times I don't have all the answers. How do you best keep everyone safe in a "city" of maniacs? good question, and probably unanswerable.
All I'm saying is that I don't "wish" solitary on anyone. but sometimes it is the only answer.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You have made a vague reference depending on the homicide case. Are you speaking of circumstances?
For example... do you think Olson's random murders of children are the same as that of, for example, an enraged father's murder of a man who has raped his daughter (such as the case we observed in Texas about a year ago)?
In other words... does the nature of the crime have any bearing at all? Is the father the same as Olson? If not... would they serve the same sentence regardless of the 'difference' between the two?
depending if it's murder or manslaughter. that's all I meant.
that comparison is tricky, but legally speaking, murder is murder. yes, yes, flame me all you want about it, but if you kill with intent, you serve life. I don't remember the details of the father's case, if he caught the guy in the act, or if it was after the fact, so if it was the former, that makes things different (could be argued he was defending his daughter). But the latter? that's just flat out revenge, and yes, in any case, that warrants life.
would I have done the same as the father? probably. but that doesn't make it right.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I myself ... solitary should be discontinued ... everyone in general ... no matter the crime. Certain individuals absolutely deserve capital punishment ... those that shall be in the front of the line are those that video tape themselves humiliating their victims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Williams
here's some real human garbage
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Caught in the act. Beat him to death. No charges brought against him- it was argued that it was self defence.
Summarizing your 'legal' position that circumstances have no bearing... Olson's murders are no different than the enraged father acting after the fact. If this is so... is it your moral position as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_ ... on_murders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of ... her_Newsom
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon