An organization that tries to keep us 'human'... even without the debate we're having here, it is important that such organisations exist and take action. Again, it doesn't show us (in the very broad term of us) in a very good light, but it points out 'mistakes' and offers us the possibility to correct these.
Taking out any political debate, I am grateful these organisations exist, along with the Red Cross, Medicins Sans Frontieres, etc...
I'm not saying they shouldn't exist. I'm sure they do a lot of good. But, we can't assume that they never do wrong. That would be totally illogical. Of cousre they do wrong from time to time. No organization or entity or person or anything of this earth is without some imperfection.
Sometimes people forget that. They start to think that since such and such organization says it's OK, then it MUST be OK. Or, they say since such and such organization says it's wrong, then it MUST be wrong. That is something I'll disagree with in a moment's notice as it is totally and utterly a whole bunch of bullshit - bullshit for people who can't explain their own point of view.
Sometimes people forget that. They start to think that since such and such organization says it's OK, then it MUST be OK. Or, they say since such and such organization says it's wrong, then it MUST be wrong. That is something I'll disagree with in a moment's notice as it is totally and utterly a whole bunch of bullshit - bullshit for people who can't explain their own point of view.
Too many things are happening in the world 'behind closed doors'. As with anything that it put in front of us, we need to look into it with open eyes and an open heart. A lot of these NGOs have people in places where news teams, etc will never dream of going - they are our only witnesses. I don't think they ask people to take what they say for granted but would like them to open up to what is happening.
And, as you, I do not take anything anyone says for granted. Politicians included! Should a person (or group of persons) in a position of power say what we are doing is right and you have to have blind faith in us... I would question it.....
If it were up to me, prisoners would be subdued with no physical pain or emotional suffering or anything of that matter. But, as things stand as of the present moment, you cannot achieve subduction without a little bit of each, regardless of the sanctioned methods.
Tasers, nightsticks, stunguns...etc. all have an intimidating, physically threatening, and emotionally discomforting aspect to them. But, those methods are all sanctioned because we as a society see them as being necessary to enforce compliance.
The only (and I mean the ONLY) difference is that a dog has a psychological impact prior to its ever being used. The prisoner becomes terrified and then submits.
In which case, the use of tasers, nightsticks and stunguns are avoided. The prisoner was so scared of the dog that he submitted. Then he went about his day and the dog was put back into the kennel. Instead of being stunned, whacked with a nightstick (sure to cause bruises), or incapacitated with tear gas, the prisoner just decided it wasn't worth getting doggy teeth sunk into his leg or arm.
Just how in the world that amounts to torture is beyond me, really. No one is deliberately trying to traumatize the prisoner for the sake of being sadistic. To me, that is what defines torture. If force is used excessively and unnecessarily and has no other purpose other than to cause discomfort to the prisoner, then we have an instance of torture.
If the prisoner still does not comply, then obviously he was not that scared of the dog. Obviously, the emotional trauma just isn't happening. So that whole "psychological torture" trip goes right out the window with that one.
And stranger yet is the comparison between this an abu gharib. At Abu Gharib, the guards were undeniably being sadistic. There was absolutely no reason to use those dogs. That force is totally unnecessarily and strictly being imposed for the purpose of causing discomfort to the prisoner.
And that's the huge difference between the two. To make a correlation is to not understand what sadism really and truly is. If you ask me, that's kind of scary - people not knowing what the difference is between sadism and necessary and practical use of force.
If it were up to me, prisoners would be subdued with no physical pain or emotional suffering or anything of that matter. But, as things stand as of the present moment, you cannot achieve subduction without a little bit of each, regardless of the sanctioned methods.
Tasers, nightsticks, stunguns...etc. all have an intimidating, physically threatening, and emotionally discomforting aspect to them. But, those methods are all sanctioned because we as a society see them as being necessary to enforce compliance.
The only (and I mean the ONLY) difference is that a dog has a psychological impact prior to its ever being used. The prisoner becomes terrified and then submits.
In which case, the use of tasers, nightsticks and stunguns are avoided. The prisoner was so scared of the dog that he submitted. Then he went about his day and the dog was put back into the kennel. Instead of being stunned, whacked with a nightstick (sure to cause bruises), or incapacitated with tear gas, the prisoner just decided it wasn't worth getting doggy teeth sunk into his leg or arm.
Just how in the world that amounts to torture is beyond me, really. No one is deliberately trying to traumatize the prisoner for the sake of being sadistic. To me, that is what defines torture. If force is used excessively and unnecessarily and has no other purpose other than to cause discomfort to the prisoner, then we have an instance of torture.
If the prisoner still does not comply, then obviously he was not that scared of the dog. Obviously, the emotional trauma just isn't happening. So that whole "psychological torture" trip goes right out the window with that one.
And stranger yet is the comparison between this an abu gharib. At Abu Gharib, the guards were undeniably being sadistic. There was absolutely no reason to use those dogs. That force is totally unnecessarily and strictly being imposed for the purpose of causing discomfort to the prisoner.
And that's the huge difference between the two. To make a correlation is to not understand what sadism really and truly is. If you ask me, that's kind of scary - people not knowing what the difference is between sadism and necessary and practical use of force.
A guard using a stick or some other weapon because someone refuses to come out of his cell(it would be different if the guard was attacked,then it becomes defence)is also unnessary force in my opinion.But why i think that it becomes torture when a dog is send in there....the prisoner is not going to know what the dog is capable of,also a dog is not going to stand trial if he "accidently "kills or seriously injures a prisoner.A guard that beats someone to death with a blow to the head with a night stick will have to answer for his actions.It is torture because of two things combined...the psycological effect and the physical injuries that they might get.When a dog is sent in there is a loss of controle over what might happen.The prisoner can freak out and the smell of fear can trigger a dog....howe well trained it may be.When something can be resolved without fear and physical wounds and they choose to take the "solution" that does have those effects ....in my eyes it is torture.And the previous line does not mean that i think milk and cookies wil do the trick.
Well, you're assuming the prisoner does not know what the dog is capable of. I think it's pretty much common knowledge that the dog is going to bite down real hard on the arm or on the leg and not let go until the police man says heel.
Also, you're assuming that the policeman will be held liable for his actions. Only when he is caught on video is that the case. If a cop bashes a guy's head in and is not caught on vidoe, then all said cop has to do is say the guy was resisting and became a danger to the officers. Happens all the time.
Also, you're again citing the possibility that the cop might lose control of the dog. This is such a rare occurrence that I don't think it's really relevant to the issue at hand. There's a much higher chance of a good nightstick bashing than of a dog tearing out a person's artery.
But, you did say that nightsticks are also inhumane and should also be removed from the hands of prison guards. So, that just leaves tasers, tear gas, pepper spray...etc. Those just aren't all that effective against your average violent criminal. Once that person resists, it usually has to get physical. At least with the threat of the dog, the physical confrontation is minmized.
I've read this thread and I have the feeling that there is something forgotten here.
Last I heard, prison is supposed to be a place where criminal are kept away from society because of their behavior, both as punishment AND as a place where they're supposed to be helped re-integrating their place.
And no, violence never solved anything except in video games, which I'm really fond of
Last I heard, prison is supposed to be a place where criminal are kept away from society because of their behavior, both as punishment AND as a place where they're supposed to be helped re-integrating their place.
As a result of circumstances that are beyond our control, there currently exists a difference between the way things are supposed to be and the way things must be. The dog and other forms of physical restraint are a necessity. The money, the technology, and the resources aren't available to make prisons the rehabilitative utopia that we as an idealistic people have envisioned. The best we can do for now is try to put ourselves in the cop's shoes and understand what the best solution is given the circumstances and the available means.
wel i do see some logic in what you are saying....it just stil feels like a wrong thing to do in my opinion.But that is what it al comes down too...a difference of opinion.I wil never see it as a humain thing to do...not even if it is with somebody that has killed or raped (or what ever the crime may be)
And of course i am assuming...i do not say that in every case it wil be the same...but neither can you.You cannot be sure it wil never go wrong.
The fact that you say that an officer can get away with beating somebody to death makes me wonder if it is not just as easy(if not easier) to wait a litlle too long with yelling heel to the dog....so torture in my opinion.
But i think we are never going to agree...but then again who says we have too:D
So thanks for a good sharing of opinions sponger....you make strong points and stil stay polite,unlike some others here!
Nothing wrong with a good discussion!!
I've read this thread and I have the feeling that there is something forgotten here.
Last I heard, prison is supposed to be a place where criminal are kept away from society because of their behavior, both as punishment AND as a place where they're supposed to be helped re-integrating their place.
And no, violence never solved anything except in video games, which I'm really fond of
Heh, I don't know if prison was ever a rehabilitation place, but I do think that now is the best time ever to start with it.
I mean, it goes from one extreme to the other.
Without getting into details, I personally knew a pedophile who got in jail for abusing about 20 kids. Inderectly (through letters and such), he told "us" about how life was actually good in jail, got photos of his nice cell, tv set, video games and how it was easier to get illegal stuff in jail as out of it. He got out after 5 years.
Then I hear innocent people receiving death penalty.
I have no idea how to handle this.
Or people in jail should be immediatly killed, or threated like human beings. Torturing people, even criminals, turns you just like them.
I personally and honestly don't know. I know that, if I meet that pedophile again, I'll feel the urge of ripping his balls off and stick them into his ass along with a bowling ball.
What I'm trying to say is that, we, as "normal people", feel the need of justice, and I'm somehow afraid that people mix vengeance or revenge, and justice. On the other hand, we have proof, on a daily basis, that justice is corrupted, just as any other system.
Heh, I don't know if prison was ever a rehabilitation place, but I do think that now is the best time ever to start with it.
I mean, it goes from one extreme to the other.
Without getting into details, I personally knew a pedophile who got in jail for abusing about 20 kids. Inderectly (through letters and such), he told "us" about how life was actually good in jail, got photos of his nice cell, tv set, video games and how it was easier to get illegal stuff in jail as out of it. He got out after 5 years.
Then I hear innocent people receiving death penalty.
I have no idea how to handle this.
Or people in jail should be immediatly killed, or threated like human beings. Torturing people, even criminals, turns you just like them.
I personally and honestly don't know. I know that, if I meet that pedophile again, I'll feel the urge of ripping his balls off and stick them into his ass along with a bowling ball.
What I'm trying to say is that, we, as "normal people", feel the need of justice, and I'm somehow afraid that people mix vengeance or revenge, and justice. On the other hand, we have proof, on a daily basis, that justice is corrupted, just as any other system.
See, I could never work as someone who is supposed to supply justice. Cause my emotions would get in the way. Like that guy...there's no telling what I would do to that guy.
I usually don't get involved with MT - too scared. But this time I have to make one point ...well, maybe a couple. First, I don't like the use of dogs becuase of the danger to the dogs. They didn't have that career choice.
Second, imagine the situation. You are a prisoner sitting in your cell. You are a convicted felon in a maximum or medium security prison. You know the rules. A guard comes by and says "Joe, we need to search your cell as part of our weekly routine. Please come with me." Joe just sits there doing nothing or says "F*** you Pete." Pete goes and gets Spot, the prison dog. Pete comes back with Spot and says "Joe you have to get out of your cell or I will have to send Spot in after you." Joe says, "F*** you Pete and your dog Spot too."
Tell me.... isn't Joe responsible for this "cruel and inhumane punishment?" Joe knew good and well what was going to happen if he didn't do what Pete told him to do. This is not the same scenario as a police officer knocking at my door and ordering me to go with him. I have a constitution right to NOT be taken into custody without a warrant or w/out an officer in hot pursuit after seeing me commit a crime. But someone in prison has already been convicted of a crime. There is NO privacy right in prison. It is the way the system works. So if Joe doesn't want to come out, he knows that he has to pay the price. There is no "principal" of the thing. There is no "right" for him not to come out. I pretty much think that it how it is in all prisons in all countries. If Joe wants to fight with the Pete and Spot, he made the choice.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. Ghandi
I usually don't get involved with MT - too scared. But this time I have to make one point ...well, maybe a couple. First, I don't like the use of dogs becuase of the danger to the dogs. They didn't have that career choice.
Second, imagine the situation. You are a prisoner sitting in your cell. You are a convicted felon in a maximum or medium security prison. You know the rules. A guard comes by and says "Joe, we need to search your cell as part of our weekly routine. Please come with me." Joe just sits there doing nothing or says "F*** you Pete." Pete goes and gets Spot, the prison dog. Pete comes back with Spot and says "Joe you have to get out of your cell or I will have to send Spot in after you." Joe says, "F*** you Pete and your dog Spot too."
Tell me.... isn't Joe responsible for this "cruel and inhumane punishment?" Joe knew good and well what was going to happen if he didn't do what Pete told him to do. This is not the same scenario as a police officer knocking at my door and ordering me to go with him. I have a constitution right to NOT be taken into custody without a warrant or w/out an officer in hot pursuit after seeing me commit a crime. But someone in prison has already been convicted of a crime. There is NO privacy right in prison. It is the way the system works. So if Joe doesn't want to come out, he knows that he has to pay the price. There is no "principal" of the thing. There is no "right" for him not to come out. I pretty much think that it how it is in all prisons in all countries. If Joe wants to fight with the Pete and Spot, he made the choice.
excellent point. Im sure it will be scoffed at or ignored. But you hit it right on the head. Some people are so desparately looking for a victim to 'save' they miss the obvious.
Comments
She..
I'm not saying they shouldn't exist. I'm sure they do a lot of good. But, we can't assume that they never do wrong. That would be totally illogical. Of cousre they do wrong from time to time. No organization or entity or person or anything of this earth is without some imperfection.
Sometimes people forget that. They start to think that since such and such organization says it's OK, then it MUST be OK. Or, they say since such and such organization says it's wrong, then it MUST be wrong. That is something I'll disagree with in a moment's notice as it is totally and utterly a whole bunch of bullshit - bullshit for people who can't explain their own point of view.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Too many things are happening in the world 'behind closed doors'. As with anything that it put in front of us, we need to look into it with open eyes and an open heart. A lot of these NGOs have people in places where news teams, etc will never dream of going - they are our only witnesses. I don't think they ask people to take what they say for granted but would like them to open up to what is happening.
And, as you, I do not take anything anyone says for granted. Politicians included! Should a person (or group of persons) in a position of power say what we are doing is right and you have to have blind faith in us... I would question it.....
Tasers, nightsticks, stunguns...etc. all have an intimidating, physically threatening, and emotionally discomforting aspect to them. But, those methods are all sanctioned because we as a society see them as being necessary to enforce compliance.
The only (and I mean the ONLY) difference is that a dog has a psychological impact prior to its ever being used. The prisoner becomes terrified and then submits.
In which case, the use of tasers, nightsticks and stunguns are avoided. The prisoner was so scared of the dog that he submitted. Then he went about his day and the dog was put back into the kennel. Instead of being stunned, whacked with a nightstick (sure to cause bruises), or incapacitated with tear gas, the prisoner just decided it wasn't worth getting doggy teeth sunk into his leg or arm.
Just how in the world that amounts to torture is beyond me, really. No one is deliberately trying to traumatize the prisoner for the sake of being sadistic. To me, that is what defines torture. If force is used excessively and unnecessarily and has no other purpose other than to cause discomfort to the prisoner, then we have an instance of torture.
If the prisoner still does not comply, then obviously he was not that scared of the dog. Obviously, the emotional trauma just isn't happening. So that whole "psychological torture" trip goes right out the window with that one.
And stranger yet is the comparison between this an abu gharib. At Abu Gharib, the guards were undeniably being sadistic. There was absolutely no reason to use those dogs. That force is totally unnecessarily and strictly being imposed for the purpose of causing discomfort to the prisoner.
And that's the huge difference between the two. To make a correlation is to not understand what sadism really and truly is. If you ask me, that's kind of scary - people not knowing what the difference is between sadism and necessary and practical use of force.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
But its mean! Poor dog has to taste human filth.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Also, you're assuming that the policeman will be held liable for his actions. Only when he is caught on video is that the case. If a cop bashes a guy's head in and is not caught on vidoe, then all said cop has to do is say the guy was resisting and became a danger to the officers. Happens all the time.
Also, you're again citing the possibility that the cop might lose control of the dog. This is such a rare occurrence that I don't think it's really relevant to the issue at hand. There's a much higher chance of a good nightstick bashing than of a dog tearing out a person's artery.
But, you did say that nightsticks are also inhumane and should also be removed from the hands of prison guards. So, that just leaves tasers, tear gas, pepper spray...etc. Those just aren't all that effective against your average violent criminal. Once that person resists, it usually has to get physical. At least with the threat of the dog, the physical confrontation is minmized.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Last I heard, prison is supposed to be a place where criminal are kept away from society because of their behavior, both as punishment AND as a place where they're supposed to be helped re-integrating their place.
And no, violence never solved anything except in video games, which I'm really fond of
As a result of circumstances that are beyond our control, there currently exists a difference between the way things are supposed to be and the way things must be. The dog and other forms of physical restraint are a necessity. The money, the technology, and the resources aren't available to make prisons the rehabilitative utopia that we as an idealistic people have envisioned. The best we can do for now is try to put ourselves in the cop's shoes and understand what the best solution is given the circumstances and the available means.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
And of course i am assuming...i do not say that in every case it wil be the same...but neither can you.You cannot be sure it wil never go wrong.
The fact that you say that an officer can get away with beating somebody to death makes me wonder if it is not just as easy(if not easier) to wait a litlle too long with yelling heel to the dog....so torture in my opinion.
But i think we are never going to agree...but then again who says we have too:D
So thanks for a good sharing of opinions sponger....you make strong points and stil stay polite,unlike some others here!
Nothing wrong with a good discussion!!
I LOVE the video games.
I mean, it goes from one extreme to the other.
Without getting into details, I personally knew a pedophile who got in jail for abusing about 20 kids. Inderectly (through letters and such), he told "us" about how life was actually good in jail, got photos of his nice cell, tv set, video games and how it was easier to get illegal stuff in jail as out of it. He got out after 5 years.
Then I hear innocent people receiving death penalty.
I have no idea how to handle this.
Or people in jail should be immediatly killed, or threated like human beings. Torturing people, even criminals, turns you just like them.
I personally and honestly don't know. I know that, if I meet that pedophile again, I'll feel the urge of ripping his balls off and stick them into his ass along with a bowling ball.
What I'm trying to say is that, we, as "normal people", feel the need of justice, and I'm somehow afraid that people mix vengeance or revenge, and justice. On the other hand, we have proof, on a daily basis, that justice is corrupted, just as any other system.
See, I could never work as someone who is supposed to supply justice. Cause my emotions would get in the way. Like that guy...there's no telling what I would do to that guy.
On the other hand, maybe he "healed".
That's what the comission tought, when they set him free.
And before he got his hands on another bunch of kids...
When I think about it, it's like a bad movie.
Still it's real... And part of my problem with criminals and jails, at least as it exists nowadays.
How am I supposed to live in a world that allow this to happen?
What can I do to change that, except by doing justice myself?
All one can do, is to have faith, that people of good will might one day represent "majority".
Second, imagine the situation. You are a prisoner sitting in your cell. You are a convicted felon in a maximum or medium security prison. You know the rules. A guard comes by and says "Joe, we need to search your cell as part of our weekly routine. Please come with me." Joe just sits there doing nothing or says "F*** you Pete." Pete goes and gets Spot, the prison dog. Pete comes back with Spot and says "Joe you have to get out of your cell or I will have to send Spot in after you." Joe says, "F*** you Pete and your dog Spot too."
Tell me.... isn't Joe responsible for this "cruel and inhumane punishment?" Joe knew good and well what was going to happen if he didn't do what Pete told him to do. This is not the same scenario as a police officer knocking at my door and ordering me to go with him. I have a constitution right to NOT be taken into custody without a warrant or w/out an officer in hot pursuit after seeing me commit a crime. But someone in prison has already been convicted of a crime. There is NO privacy right in prison. It is the way the system works. So if Joe doesn't want to come out, he knows that he has to pay the price. There is no "principal" of the thing. There is no "right" for him not to come out. I pretty much think that it how it is in all prisons in all countries. If Joe wants to fight with the Pete and Spot, he made the choice.
excellent point. Im sure it will be scoffed at or ignored. But you hit it right on the head. Some people are so desparately looking for a victim to 'save' they miss the obvious.
www.myspace.com/jensvad